Are Donald Trump’s big interventions in Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela, Greenland, Mexico and Iran in the US national interest? Or is he changing the meaning of ‘America First’ at the risk of the ‘peace’ part of ‘peace through strength? Joining Piers Morgan to debate; Part of the Problem host Dave Smith, The Free Press’s Coleman Hughes, Secular Talk’s Kyle Kulinski and Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles. 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. Cozy Earth: Start the New Year with real comfort. Go to https://cozyearth.com/PIERS for up to 20% off. Mando: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @shop.mando and get 20% off + free shipping with promo code PIERS at https://shopmando.com! #mandopod 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
Regime Change Logic00:14:29
The idea that we would go flirting with multiple wars of choice at this point, it's not left-wing or right-wing.
It's just reckless.
We're talking about regime change in Venezuela.
The regime is still in place.
What we did was depose the leader.
We left the vice president in place and we said, act in a way that is appropriate in accordance with the law and our interests, or we're going to kill you.
He just did the regime change in Venezuela.
He bombed Yemen and Somalia and Nigeria and Iran.
He's threatening Greenland and Panama and Canada and Cuba and Mexico.
And you sit there the whole time and act like it's okay.
Is there anything Trump can do, Michael Knowles?
That you would say, I condemn it, and you hop off the Trump train, or are you going to take a look at taint for the rest of your fucking life?
We have a military base, we have mineral connections.
And so the idea of taking Greenland by force against the will of the people who live there is absolutely ridiculous.
If we were to purchase it, it'd have to happen with their consent.
Michael, if you want to come on my podcast, I'll do two hours on the Barbary Wars with you.
The point is that we're not going to be able to do it.
I don't want to put a Barbary War Act.
Last time President Trump faced an outpouring of angst over the apparent demise of America First, he made it very clear that it really means whatever he wants it to mean.
Funny enough, it was airstrikes on Iran which triggered that debate.
At the time of the recording, this recording this looks entirely possible that recent history will be repeated.
Ever since Trump became president, most foreign policy bigwigs have written many mournful op-eds and essays about American isolationism and its shriveling influence on the world.
Now the feverish talk is of an Imperial Trump building an American empire with dominion of the Americas and tentacles stretching to Tehran.
So if the Donroe doctrine, as people are calling it, means doing anything that's in the U.S. national interest, the question is whether big interventions in Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela, Greenland, Mexico, and Iran are in fact in the U.S. national interest.
What happened to just worrying about the price of eggs?
And where does it leave the many people who thought that the peace part of peace through strength really was in the U.S. national interest all along?
What drawing me to debate all this is Dave Smith, host of Part of the Problem.
Coleman Hughes, hosted conversations with Coleman at the Free Press, Karl Kalinsky, aka Secular Talk, and Michael Knowles, host of the Daily Wire's Michael Noll Show.
A truly stellar panel, even given the caliber of the stellar panels we have, which I think you were discussing with Theo Vaughan, in fact Dave Smith, in a complimentary way.
So thank you and happy new year to all of you.
Dave Smith, let me start with you.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Thank you.
There's a lot going on.
You know, I decided to have a week off after Christmas.
Big mistake.
Never have a week off in the Trump administration.
It seemed like all hell was breaking loose.
And yet, if you park the rhetoric, which can be very incendiary on all sides, and you cut to the presumed ideology of what Trump is trying to do here, I do see the argument.
I may not agree with all of it, but I see the logic of what he's trying to do and why he thinks it's in America's interest.
And that applies to whether it's Venezuela and getting rid of Maduro or whether it's the Iran situation and so on.
Do you see the logic, even if you don't agree with it all?
No.
Okay.
I mean, no, I mean, Pierce, it's, as you said, you know, Donald Trump can say America First means whatever I say it means, but if America first meant one thing to everybody who's ever uttered the phrase and then he wants to change that to mean America First means regime changes all around the world, huge, enormous, unthinkable bloated defense budgets like he just requested from Congress.
And if he's going to think that none of his supporters are going to have a problem with that or that they're all just going to change their views because he decided to change his, I think he's going to find out how well that works for him in the midterms this year.
And I think it's going to be a disaster.
And, you know, obviously it's true, Pierce, as you said, and we all know Donald Trump will say all types of crazy things and then never follow through with that.
But he also just asked Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget.
And that to me does indicate that he is anticipating a real deal war coming up, or at least the possibility of it.
And if he means the things that he says.
I mean, I don't exactly know how you do that.
I don't know how you say we run Venezuela and we'll dictate who the next regime is and we'll dictate where the oil goes without at least an effort of like 100,000 troops.
I'm not even sure that would be enough to do it.
So it's unclear what exactly the next move is going to be.
And that's really when we'll find out what, you know, what he's going to do.
But no, Pierce, the idea that we're 38 or maybe 39 by the end of the show, trillion dollars in debt right now, we have major, major problems in this country.
And we have a hot war raging on in Europe, which is a proxy war between the entire West and the biggest nuclear-armed power in the history of the world.
The idea that we would go flirting with multiple wars of choice at this point, it's not left-wing or right-wing.
It's just reckless.
There's no wisdom in it.
Michael Knowles, I guess the argument against what Trump is doing is that many people who voted for Trump bought into the concept that want America first was take care of what's happening in your own backyard and stop meddling in foreign affairs.
And now they're waking up almost on a daily basis to seeing Donald Trump proudly and aggressively talking about meddling in all sorts of foreign affairs.
Is there a contradiction or hypocrisy or even a betrayal of voters going on here?
Not at all.
First of all, Venezuela is in our own backyard and it's been the policy of the United States in 1803 to manage the Western Hemisphere.
So that's a cornerstone of American foreign policy.
I think it is charming that Dave is defining America first in the way that he prefers.
And I think there are plenty of people who wish to do that.
But Dave, though a very popular podcaster, never won a presidential election.
And Trump has been clear on what he means by America First, the political movement that he built, that people voted for in his coalition since the beginning.
President Trump campaigned the first time around on destroying ISIS.
So obviously that does not mean that America's only going to look inward.
President Trump has carried out attacks, military operations that were extremely successful in Iran, in Syria, in Afghanistan, obviously in Venezuela.
He's been talking about taking Greenland and even invading America's evil top hat, Canada, though I think he's mostly joking about that one, since the beginning.
So that's what that means.
And what it comes down to is that America is a global empire.
We just are.
People can be upset about that.
But unless your geopolitics comes strictly from Reddit, you know, if your geopolitics actually comes from history, you recognize that we've been an empire since the Louisiana Purchase, okay?
And we've been a muscular global empire since the Second World War.
So President Trump's vision, I think, actually rejects two extremes.
It rejects a conservative isolationism, and it rejects liberal internationalism.
And it posits a conservative imperialism that says that we are going to recognize our role in the world, but we are going to pursue that role in limited ways with America's interest at heart.
So there's been no regime change in Venezuela.
We're talking about regime change in Venezuela.
The regime is still in place.
What we did was depose the leader.
We left the vice president in place and we said, act in a way that is appropriate in accordance with the law and our interests, or we're going to kill you.
That's very different than a bushy-era neocon regime change in Iraq.
Even when we're talking about Iran, the Trump administration has not gone in in a particularly overt way yet.
But even there, we would be talking about a restoration of the Pahlavi regime, most likely, that goes back to 1925.
So I grant there are all sorts of risks to interventions, but we're in the global empire, you know, and frankly, even the American Revolution comes out of wars of global empire.
It comes out of the Seven Years' War, which itself was a derivation of the War of Austrian succession.
To pretend that we don't have a role in geopolitics is to ignore all of American history.
Okay, Karl Konesky, I can see you grimacing through a lot of what Michael was saying there.
You said Trump says the U.S. will run Venezuela and he threatens Colombia and Mexico, arrest this psychotic motherfucker.
Before I get you to expand on that thesis, I mean, the point I was making to Dave, if I want to elaborate on where I sit with this, I've had a bit of time to look at this play out, is you look at Maduro.
Everyone thought, my God, this is going to be World War III.
Actually, Maduro is going to end up in a New York courtroom and he's been got rid of.
Everyone seems to agree that's a good thing for not just the Venezuelan people, but the world.
No American troops died in what was an incredibly efficient surgical military strike to get him out of there.
And if you have a more compliant leader of Venezuela, albeit part of the same regime, that can probably only be a good thing.
If you look at the argument about Greenland, for example, I've been struck by some of the people that I didn't expect to think this was a good idea.
It was a British general last week talking about this, saying that from a strategic security point of view, it would make perfect sense for America to have Greenland.
And is there a deal to be done?
He didn't think invading it was the right thing, and nor do I.
But is there a deal to be done with 60,000 people who live in Greenland that could actually improve the security of the United States and the West against the obvious threat from China and Russia and so on?
And I can go through the others.
Iran, you know, getting rid of the Ayatollah and the Mullahs is unquestionably a good thing for the world.
It's how you do these things and whether you plan and prepare properly for what follows next that I think are the debatable points.
And history says that's normally, unfortunately, been very badly done.
But this is what I meant when I said to Dave that I understand the argument.
I may not agree with all of it, but I do understand the logic to what Trump is doing here.
Do you?
No, because we don't have a right to act like this around the world.
We're supposed to be a nation among nations, not a nation above nations.
And they used to at least lie to us in the past and say that this is good for the world and we're spreading freedom and democracy.
Now they don't even bother to lie.
Now it's naked, rank, disgusting imperialism where they say we're going to take the oil.
And the point is that we're going to take the oil.
We're going to take the minerals.
We're going to take the precious metals.
We're doing this for our corporations.
We're doing it for the Epstein class, the billionaires.
And this, to piggyback on what Dave Smith said, is frankly not what many of the MAGA voters thought they were signing up for.
They thought America first actually meant America first.
By the way, you also replaced the Maduro regime with the Maduro regime.
Congratulations on that.
It's also been now a week straight of pro-regime protests.
Now you have roving gangs of Venezuelan militias that are kidnapping Americans.
But again, I come back to the fundamental point, which is if you sign on to stuff like this, you're saying might makes right and the law of the jungle is back.
What you're saying is China has a right to go into whatever smaller country they want and depose the leader and say we're doing it because we can and we have the right to do it and we have bigger guns and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
So they're never going to address that fundamental question, which is why do we have a right?
Do we actually believe in international law or was that all a joke?
Are we rolling the clock back to the 1700s and the 1800s and we're going super primitive style here?
And I think the answer to that is they want to go super primitive style.
Here we go again.
For the cameras, before the ceremony, before history is made, every detail is chosen.
From Amazon MGM Studios comes Melania.
This new film takes you inside the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential inauguration through the eyes of the First Lady herself, where fashion isn't just style, it's strategy.
Witness the image-defining decisions made behind closed doors, a celebration of duty and glamour.
Melania, only in theaters, January 30th.
International law goes back to antiquity.
It's not some creation of modernity, whether we're talking about the 1700s or the 20th century.
The Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Tribunal, excuse me, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Tribunal?
Yes, those international laws, the use gensium goes back to antiquity.
However, unfortunately, a lot of the liberal friends think history.
So that's why we had a few decades ago.
The League of Nations was useless.
It fell apart.
And that's why we had the UN.
That's why we had the Geneva Convention.
Right, I'm talking about millennia ago.
Piles of millions of people.
Woodrow Wilson failed to do it.
And we said that's a bad idea.
We looked at piles of millions of dead bodies and said, that's a bad idea.
Let's not do that anymore.
Let's actually have a framework and rules and laws.
And Trump is blowing that up.
By the way, he bombed fishing boats from Venezuela, Trinidad, and Tobago, and Colombia.
He just did the regime change in Venezuela.
He bombed Yemen and Somalia and Nigeria and Iran.
He's threatening Greenland and Panama and Canada and Cuba and Mexico.
And you sit there the whole time and act like it's okay.
Is there anything Trump can do, Michael Knowles, that you would say, I condemn it, and you hop off the Trump train, or are you going to tickle the taint for the rest of your fucking life?
No, there have been plenty of Trump policies that I've criticized because he's only right about 99.78% of the time.
So the First Step Act, I thought, was a story.
Such a cup.
But I would say the rest of the administration has been very successful.
What's your problem?
What's that?
You're a cuck and you're a hack and you're not an independent thinker and you're meat riding Trump.
Why do you know that what he's doing is that you're not going to be able to do that?
I don't care.
I just answered.
Congratulations.
You renting your brain to a war criminal pedophile rapist.
I hope you're happy.
A war criminal pedophile rapist?
You brought up international law and you made a very false point, a dumb point, which is that international law began only a few hundred years ago.
I corrected you and I pointed out that the international law is part of the Western tradition.
Excuse me, one second.
It goes back to antiquity.
It's a principle of the use gensium.
And then you said, well, international law has failed because of the League of Nations failure, which I think is actually undermining your argument and proving my point and proving Trump's point.
Because the liberal internationalism that was established by people like Woodrow Wilson did in fact fail, which is why we need to restore an older and more classical conception of the international order, which is precisely what Trump's doing.
So I think you've hoisted your own petard by all your sort of non-sequiturs because you don't have a leg to stand on.
All right, let me bring in a question real quick.
Tell me the name of the Minister of Defense in Venezuela.
Unintended Consequences00:06:00
I don't know.
Whatever his name is.
Well, and that's the problem.
You're advocating for a regime change.
You don't know the first thing.
I didn't.
I just said the opposite.
You're advocating against the regime change.
He actually said the opposite.
I heard Michael Wilson.
I just want to correct you.
I heard Michael's.
The regime remains there, right?
So he said the opposite, in fact.
I want to bring in Coleman.
No, no, but he wanted to take out Maduro.
Don't give me that cutesy little bit.
Yes, but he made the point of the regime.
He made the point the regime is still there and the vice president appears to be much more compliant with running Venezuela the way America would prefer for its national security than Maduro.
So that's what Michael said.
He didn't advocate regime change.
Let me bring in Coleman Hughes.
Coleman, the president is a good idea.
Well, hang on, hang on, Carl.
Let me bring in regime change.
Coleman has a sort of word, yeah.
Coleman, what's interesting about you, I think, with this is you've been, you've been, I think, striving to be quite nuanced with your take on all this stuff that's going on.
And that's kind of where I found myself is that sometimes taking a beat, looking at it from just a step away and trying not to be too knee-jerk about all these things, often A, can be beneficial to your mental health, but actually can probably better, I think, represent what is really going on here.
Everyone wants to go to extremes very, very quickly about everything and take a very tribal position.
I've been struck by your, I think, you know, quite intellectually honest attempt to be more nuanced.
So what do you think about all this?
Thank you, Piers.
I try to not think about these issues in terms of left versus right or Trump versus the opposition and try to take each issue on its own terms.
So let's do that.
Venezuela, if the policy here is actual regime change, in other words, not just decapitating Maduro and replacing Maduro with a second worst alternative.
If we were to actually affect regime change in Venezuela, that would almost certainly be a good thing for the people of Venezuela and for American interests.
Now, if we're going to do this half measure where we just decapitate Maduro and replace him with someone just as bad and then get a bunch of oil, well, that would at best be probably neutral for the Venezuelan people.
It would be an enormous waste of U.S. military resources.
And I would be very critical of the Trump administration.
The truth is, I don't know which path we're going down, right?
It's very early.
We're getting different signals from Trump depending on the day, different signals from Rubio.
And anyone who's confidently prognosticating that they know which path we're going down probably doesn't know what they're talking about.
As for Greenland, I think the truth is Trump is extraordinarily reckless in his rhetoric here.
We have a situation where we have an ally in Denmark, a NATO ally.
We have deep relationships with Greenland already.
We have a military base.
We have mineral connections.
And so the idea of taking Greenland by force against the will of the people who live there is absolutely ridiculous.
Now, that said, if we were to purchase it, I think that'd be a good thing.
It'd have to happen with their consent.
They would have to want it.
And I would welcome them as an American, but we absolutely should not, cannot take it by force.
Right.
See, that to me, Dave Smith, is part of the interesting part of all this, is that it's how this plays out.
It's what actually Trump really wants to do.
If he doesn't economic, I mean, take, for example, what China has been doing in Africa for the last 20 years.
It's been going around Africa pretty quietly, actually, unless you're actually in Africa, and it's been doing endless commercial deals with African countries where they go in, they spend a lot of money on infrastructure and hospitals and bridges and roads and all these things.
And in return, they get access to huge amounts of minerals.
And that's been going on for 20 years.
And that's a kind of economic imperialism.
I see no ideological difference between that and what Trump is potentially talking about with Greenland, which is clearly incredibly important strategically, from a security point of view, from a mineral point of view, and so on.
And there are only 60,000 people who live there.
And it may well be that they're happy to do a deal if the price is right.
In which case, what's the difference?
Yeah.
Well, I'll say I pretty much agree with Coleman, I guess, on that.
Like, if it's voluntary, then okay.
I don't really know enough about Greenland to really speak on it intelligently, but I could not disagree more with the take on Venezuela.
And I think it's crazy, Pierce.
I also think, you know, just after the last 25 years, and I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but the idea that we're just talking about regime changes in Iran and Venezuela and saying it would undoubtedly be a good thing if this regime were to fall.
Well, maybe, but there's a really important question of what comes next.
And if you want to say that, like, you know, I mean, we've had a long history of regime changes in Latin America that have been disastrous too.
We overthrew a communist government in the 50s in Guatemala, led to a civil war where hundreds of thousands of people died.
So the idea that it's just, it's a guarantee that it would be a good thing if either one of these regimes fell, we certainly don't know that.
And one of the other things we know is that you really don't get much of a say in what replaces the regime that falls unless you're willing to militarily occupy the country.
And we've had regime change.
We might be able to affect a full regime change without a military occupation, as we did in Libya, as we did in Syria.
But, you know, those are not great examples where the country worked out.
I mean, Syria is hanging on by a hair and Libya is an absolute catastrophe.
And there's no, so it's just like, it's very reckless when you start playing.
You know, you start dropping bombs on human beings.
You start toppling governments.
You start kidnapping or, you know, taking, you know, leaders of countries.
There's unintended consequences that come with all of these things.
That's probably the one lesson in all of this military history is that nobody is smart enough to predict exactly what's going to come next.
And so I just think it's, you know, I see this with the situation in Iran.
I say Michael Knowles are there.
Reckless Middle East Policy00:09:53
It's like, guys, it's like you hoist up the mission accomplished banner two days after the strike.
We have absolutely no idea what's going to come of this.
Obviously, in the situation in Iran, just right in front of all of our eyes, Pierce, what?
The goalposts have moved from 60% enriched uranium, which is what me and Coleman were arguing about a few months ago.
That's out the window now, right?
Nobody even cares or is pretending there's a nuclear threat.
Donald Trump's bragging about how it's obliterated.
Then both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump moved the goalpost to intercontinental ballistic missiles.
And then that was the war propaganda for a couple months there.
Now it's over whether they shoot protesters or rioters.
Not even like an accusation that they're committing a genocide or are a threat to another country.
They invaded their neighbor, nothing like that.
So I would just say, I think one of the most important lessons, and Michael, who's a history buff, would know that every last one of the founders of this country talked about this all the time, is that you want to be sober and calm and rational.
You want to not intervene when you don't need to.
There's all types of unintended consequences that can come from these things.
And that's why the advice of the founders was be friends with the world.
Don't get into entangling alliances.
Don't search for monsters to destroy to fight unnecessary wars.
These are all wars of choice.
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 pounds.
AFTV's robbing, 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 PERS and get 70% off your first order.
You're 70% off with the code PIRES.
Well, speaking of the founders and the American relation to foreign affairs, what was our first big international war?
Was it the Iraq War?
Was it the Gulf of War?
Yeah, you're talking about the Barbary pirates or whatever.
I don't know.
I'm talking about it.
I'm talking about 1801.
It was actually a very important thing.
So it goes back to Jefferson wage the war.
Whatever.
We don't have time to get into that, but sure.
We got five wars here.
We got plenty of time, Dave, but you don't want to get into it because it undercuts your eyes.
No, I'm happy.
Michael, if you want to come on my podcast, I'll do two hours on the Barbary Wars with you.
The point is that we're trying to get a Barbary War going on right now.
Let me put this Venezuela point.
Sure, let me see.
Coleman might have something smart to say.
Yeah, so you're totally right.
There is always a risk to regime change.
And I don't mean to downplay that, but you have to factor in there is a risk to letting rogue regimes that, for instance, in the case of Venezuela, invite Hezbollah into the country, buy weapons from all of our adversaries, Iran, China, Russia, etc.
A regime that has literally run this country, which used to be one of the wealthier countries in Latin America, into the ground to the point that people are literally eating wildlife.
They're breaking into zoos, eating cats and dogs because this regime has totally destroyed the country.
There is a risk to allowing a country like that to just continue doing whatever it's going to do.
And so the idea that inaction has no risks is one thing I want to flag as a false argument.
And the second thing I want to say is you're quick to reach for analogies to the Middle East.
And I understand that.
I mean, the American public has been really has lost so much faith in the American political class because of our interventions in the Middle East.
And the lesson I think you've drawn and other people have drawn is that therefore regime change is always wrong.
I don't think that that's the right lesson.
I mean, to me, that's analogous to taking the lesson from World War II that regime change is always right because it worked in Japan and Germany.
The truth is, it's different depending on the situation on the ground.
In most of the middle, you're talking about Iraq, Syria, Yemen.
You're talking about deeply sectarian countries with deep divisions, countries that are essentially civil wars waiting to happen if the lid comes off.
Venezuela is not a country like that.
Again, the risk is not zero, but it's not a sectarian country.
It was a functioning country for a very long time.
And so the risk of civil war type outcomes like Syria and Iraq is just much lower than it is in the Middle East.
So what about Coleman?
Can I respond to that?
Hang on, hang on, hang on, please.
Hang on.
I want to just center it actually just on this point.
Let's bring it right up to date with Iran, Coleman, if I may.
Because, you know, depending on who you listen to, there's a revolution going on driven by the people to depose an incredibly unpopular regime that's been there since 1979.
Are we seeing the potential for civil war there?
Are we seeing a revolution that should happen organically without any interference or aid?
Is Trump right to say we're going to stand up for protesters who want freedom and democracy against a tyrannical regime and so on?
In other words, all the things that we've been discussing about other scenarios, let's bring it to Iran.
What's your view of what's happening there?
Well, Iran is, I think it's, you're asking me, Pierce?
Yeah.
I think we should support the opposition.
Absolutely.
You know, I don't think we should put boots on the ground.
I think I agree with Dave.
Our record in the Middle East recently, I think, precludes that for many reasons, just practical reasons.
But we absolutely should support the opposition.
Iran was a country that was a semi-functional democracy for a very long time.
In a lot of ways, it's a more coherent country, a more coherent body politic than Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, etc.
So again, I think the odds of success for a revolution there are higher, but that's not saying much considering that the region is extremely volatile to begin with.
So I totally support the opposition.
I want to see the Islamic regime go down on their terms.
And we should do what we can to support that short of full-scale military intervention.
Okay, Michael Knowles, what do you feel about Iran?
Come on, Pierce, let me respond.
Okay, okay, okay, I'll come to you, Michael Burton.
All right, Dave, you respond, then we'll come to Michael.
Well, yeah, because I mean, there's just so much there.
And, like, look, I mean, even if you're going to say that, like, well, we have a bad track record of regime change in the Middle East.
I mean, I think I've made this point.
I think I saw your point coming.
That's why I said, yeah, we also have a terrible track record of regime change in Central and South America.
And that's why I gave the example of Guatemala.
We can look at Nicaragua.
We can look at all types of different interventions that just got a whole lot of people killed and didn't do anything for the people or for the country.
And Coleman, yeah, fair enough.
There's a risk to inaction the same way there's a risk to action.
But the risk to action is to our boys and our budget and bankrupting our country.
And so it's just a totally different risk that you take on when you intervene than when you don't.
And, you know, I got to say, Coleman, these are the same arguments that were used in Iraq.
What you said about Nicaragua.
I'm sorry, what you said about Venezuela and Iran.
This is why the neocons said we were going to be greeted as liberators.
Chalabi had assured them that the people hated Saddam and they were going to be pro-American.
And you said there's not sectarian conflict in Venezuela.
I mean, Venezuela.
No, of course there is.
It's the mixed European elite class and then the majority of natives.
And that's who Chavez and Maduro always carried.
At least I know in Chavez's election, that was always his base.
And I agree with you, man.
Like, it is true that that government has ruined that country.
I am not, I hate socialism as much, if not more, than anybody on this panel.
But the thing is, like, it was a communist government in Guatemala, too.
And the civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people there didn't make it better for them.
And so I just think that like the idea that we're so confident we should back the resistance in Iran.
Well, we also had regime changes in that region that didn't require like huge numbers of boots on the ground.
And they were catastrophes too.
And to hear you guys talk about the most likely thing is that, but you know, because now you understand we have to spread hereditary monarchy.
We're not bringing democracy anymore.
The idea that the Shah's kid is going to walk in there and take power.
I say, of all the crazy things Donald Trump has said, that was one thing that I think he got right.
Yeah, I don't think he's got the juice.
And the options of what would arise in either of these conflicts, there's at least a strong possibility that there'd be tons of conflict and a worse government, if not just as bad a government at the end of the day.
Okay, Michael Knowles, the lowest polymarket odds on Iran, U.S. strikes 77% likelihood.
Khomeini, the Ayatollah, out by the end of January, I think is now up to 24%.
Fall of the Iranian regime by 2028, 47%.
So the money is moving in the predictive world to suggesting that this is the beginning.
As the Chancellor of Germany says, this is the beginning of the end of that regime.
But we have been on this rodeo a few times in Iran and it's been brutally repressed in the past.
What do you think is going to happen here?
And in terms of that point, Dave makes when things happen organically, you know, the fall of the Berlin Wall, we all remember watching that and how good that felt.
And it didn't need outside direct military intervention.
Is it not better for America to sit back and watch the Iranian people determine their own future in the way that appears to be happening than potentially cause mayhem by directly interfering on their behalf?
Well, I think those are two separate points.
And I think my friends on this panel are taken with a lot of abstract ideology, whether it's libertarianism or leftism.
Monroe Doctrine Debate00:13:18
I'm a little more interested in practical politics.
So what I think is most important here is that Iran remains orderly and does not descend into total chaos.
Iran is a real country with more of a unified history.
And also that the Iranian people do better.
Obviously, the Islamic revolution was terrible for them.
It destroyed their material conditions, led to a huge erosion of their rights and liberties.
And so it's worth remembering that the policy of the United States has been for regime change in Iran since 1979.
So the Iranians have been undermining our interests all around the world for a very long time, not just looking at the recent Iraq war where they killed over 600 Americans, but going all the way back to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, going back to the attack on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in 1996.
You know, I think we would all agree, I hope we're all mature enough to agree, that nations have interests, especially when you are a major power or a hegemonic power as the United States.
We have interests around the world.
Dave keeps pointing to his displeasure over one intervention in Guatemala.
The United States has intervened for 150 years, 88 times in Latin America.
It's usually worked out very well.
Sometimes it hasn't worked out well.
But what would have been worse is if we had let, during the Cold War, the Soviets get a hold in Latin America.
What is worse is allowing communists to run roughshod, both from the perspective of the people there as well as from the interests of the United States.
New Year is all about starting afresh and today's sponsor will help you to do exactly that.
Mando whole body deodorant is created by doctors and clinically proven to block odor for up to 72 hours.
Powered by Mandelic acid, it's free of all the bad stuff like baking soda, paraben and aluminium.
Some men mask their BO with sense.
Mando men get the job done right.
Don't mask it.
Mando it.
You'll find it in many top retailers or you can head to shopmando.com where for a limited time, new customers get 20% off site-wide with our exclusive code.
Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, at shopmando.com with 20% off site-wide plus free shipping.
Shopman.com.
Please support our show and tell them that we sent you.
Mando's got you covered.
So Michael, let me ask you this, because this point resonated with me this week, which I thought was a powerful one.
If America looks like it's just ignoring international law, if it thinks it can just go into Venezuela, you know, kidnap the president, put him in a courtroom in New York, act with impunity, take Greenland if it wants, et cetera, et cetera.
What is to stop America's enemies using the exact same argument to do what the hell they like?
For example, for example, Vladimir Putin must be sitting there going, well, hang on, every argument about why I invaded Ukraine has just gone up in smoke, hasn't it?
I mean, it's the same argument.
I wanted to do it.
It's in my national security interest.
You've got President Xi probably looking at it going, well, why can't I take Taiwan then?
If the Americans can take Greenland, because it's in their national security interest, then I want Taiwan.
And how difficult does it then become for the West and America leading the West to take any high moral ground or to stop it happening in any way if they've already trampled on international law themselves?
I think that my, first of all, I disagree with the premise, but second of all, I think my ideological friends on this panel seem to be quite mistaken about a basic premise here, which is they seem to believe that the United Nations or something is what keeps our enemies from running roughshod over the world, American interests and other peoples.
That's not true.
You know what stops our enemies?
We do.
The might of the United States is what stops us.
Now, the reason I disagree with your fundamental premise is I don't think that we violated international law in the removal of Maduro.
First of all, the Monroe Doctrine, now the Don Roe Doctrine, has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy basically since the beginning.
But two, there was a legal predicate for the removal of Maduro that goes back to a court order in 2020.
And this has really gone back about 25 years now.
Let us not forget it was the Biden-Harris administration and Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State, who called for the arrest of Maduro and actually offered 25 million bucks to anyone who could advance it.
So the only difference between the Republican action here and what the Democrats called for just one year ago is that Trump was actually able to do it and he saved 25 million bucks doing it.
But buy that lobby argument.
Buy that hangover.
By that logic, Michael, why should President Xi not be able to go into Taiwan and take the leader and put him in a Chinese courtroom?
By that logic.
Can I address that, Pierce?
He's got no answer, Piers.
I'm happy to answer.
Yeah, well, let me go.
I'm going to stop interrupting.
Yes.
So the only reason that Xi has not gone into Taiwan so far is because the United States has told Xi not to... point of international law, there is also another confusion because international law is a real thing.
Many of my fellow conservatives want to pretend that there is no such thing as international law and that might merely makes right, but that's not true.
Law is an ordinance of reason, so we can actually know something about it and it objectively exists even though it's not material.
However, what passes for international law these days, specifically over the last hundred or so years, is a bunch of liberal gobbledygooked nonsense, which even my friend here, Kyle Kalinsky, points at doesn't work, which is why the League of Nations failed and the UN has largely failed.
So there is such a thing as natural law, but it is effected through political powers.
And right now, the only thing stopping Xi from going into Taiwan, the only thing that has stopped Vladimir Putin from running roughshod over Ukraine is not some abstract concept in the clouds.
It's the might of the United States Empire and our allies around the world.
And that is what will continue to stop them.
But I don't think that's true for American style.
Kyle, I will bring you in now, but I don't think that it has stopped Putin running roughshod over Ukraine.
He just could have made it.
He hasn't taken the country yet.
Well, he invaded it.
It took as much as he could, but the Ukrainians have put up a much bigger fight than he thought they could.
But I don't think Putin's intentions have been remotely thwarted by anything American.
Well, he only invaded because of Biden.
So frankly, had Trump stayed, I don't think he would have even invaded.
But it's true.
He was able to run some roughshod over it during Joe Biden, but there was no floating international law.
Let's not forget, he invaded before the supposedly awful attack on Venezuela.
And he has.
I mean, look, but the thing is, Michael, Putin has continued to act with total impunity in Ukraine, regardless of anything Donald Trump has said publicly, either in a friendly or unfriendly manner.
He doesn't seem to care.
I think if Putin could take the whole of Ukraine tomorrow, he'd take it.
I think that's always been his.
That's my point, I guess.
That's my point.
I don't think that America's very successful strike on Venezuela is going to do one thing.
It will not change one iota of Putin's calculations.
But that's my point.
My point to you is that when it comes to Taiwan, I'm not sure that American power is the limiting factor for the calculations by people who run countries like Russia and China that you seem to think it is.
Because I think Xi would have looked at Ukraine and thought, well, what's America actually done to stop Putin preaching as much as possible?
Do you think that international law is going to limit Chairman Xi?
Well, no, I don't know if that's Reggie Brooklyn.
I do think the concept of international law has been twisted and torn apart so badly that I'm actually uncertain what it really means anymore.
Because people don't seem to, I mean, if you look at what Israel's done in Gaza, I would say they've trampled over international law with utter impunity, and they don't care.
Reasonable minds can differ, but I agree that's a good point on the murkiness of international law.
Okay, Kyle.
Yeah, well, I mean, I find this whole conversation preposterous because the idea that we're the moral arbiter of anything is honestly laughable.
Trump is himself a criminal.
He was best friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
He's covering for a billionaire pedophile cabal as we speak.
We armed and funded a genocide in Gaza.
We also armed and funded a genocide committed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
If there's any country on earth where there's some semblance of a sound argument to do regime change, it's our regime being changed.
So I don't want to open the door to this might makes right law of the jungle nonsense.
And everybody else except Dave, seemingly on the panel, is in favor of that.
And I think that's a problem.
But America.
America has a mechanism.
Kyle, hang on.
America has a mechanism for regime change.
It's called the election every four years.
And the truth is, Americans had a good, long, hard look at...
Making my point.
Well, no, I'm not.
This is my point.
I'm not.
I'm saying you are.
I'm saying you live in a free democratic society with free democratic elections.
That's why Trump won in 2016.
That's why he lost in 2020, whatever he wants people to think.
And that's why he won again in 2024.
That is regime change how it should happen.
We back 73% of the world's dictatorships.
The idea that we say, here's the dictator we don't like, we're going to overthrow them, is ridiculous.
By any objective standard, Netanyahu is worse than Maduro, and we're not overthrowing him.
So the whole conversation is absurd.
We're in no position to be the world police or the moral arbiters.
In fact, Trump himself literally says this is about the oil.
It's about the natural resources.
It's about stealing that from the corporations and the billionaires.
So the whole conversation about, you know, I actually think Venezuelans.
Okay, look, I think Venezuela can be about a number of things at the same time.
That's why I think nuance is an important factor in these things.
It can be.
But that's the question.
Can it just be pointing out?
It could be about oil.
It could be about oil.
It can be about Maduro being a gangster.
It can be about a number of things.
This was a gangster.
Trump's a gangster.
All right.
This was, isn't it funny that we have this whole conversation?
And while you're saying it could be about all these things, you know what?
No one's bringing up drugs.
And that's what it was sold to us as.
Just like all these other wars, they just lie through their teeth.
It has nothing to do with the drug problem or a tiny fraction of it.
And nothing to do with the fentanyl problem, which is the real crisis.
It's a total pretext for war.
And, you know, I got to say, man, by the way, I kind of agree with Michael on the concept of international law.
But the thing about it is, is that this is totally illegal by our own law, by the Constitution of the United States of America, which every politician puts their hand on a Bible and swears before all of us to God that they will do everything in their power to defend and execute.
There was no imminent attack here.
Donald Trump had all the time in the world to go to Congress and get permission for this.
And they just didn't want to.
And if you want to just say, like, by the way, Mike, it's funny because you point out I'm a libertarian or Kyle's a leftist.
Ironically, we're the only ones taking the conservative position here on this.
We are not an empire.
That's actually the supreme.
Yes.
Yes, that's actually right.
There's a long tradition.
Do you know your history?
There's a long tradition of telling conservatives what we believe.
And I'm not considered it for one.
No, There's a long tradition of the best conservatives having the exact same foreign policy I do.
And then a bunch of former communists who were atheists convinced you guys that it was right-wing to support wars everywhere.
By the way, the Monroe Doctrine.
I'm against Thomas Jefferson in 1801.
No, I'm not.
I don't know about that.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not talking about the Barbary wars.
Okay, anyway.
Or the Monroe administration or the Roosevelt administration.
Dude, do you even know what the Monroe Doctrine is?
You say the Monroe Doctrine means that we get to run our hemisphere?
No, it doesn't.
The Monroe Doctrine.
Michael, let me finish a thought and then you can respond to it.
No, that's not actually true.
It meant that Europe couldn't have any more colonies here.
And in turn, we wouldn't interfere in Europe.
By the way, it's not a law.
It's something a president said once in a speech.
And it hasn't been the cornerstone of our farm.
It hasn't been.
Have we not interfered in Europe?
Have we not interfered in Europe for over 200 years?
Is that what you're telling me, Michael?
And then we became the world empire.
Oh, that's right.
Right, exactly.
So we abandoned the Monroe Doctrine.
We never followed it at all.
And the Monroe Doctrine never said, they said that Europe couldn't establish more colonies.
They already had several.
That they couldn't establish more colonies.
It didn't say that if there's a country that does a mineral deal with a country somewhere else because we won't allow our companies to do it with them, that therefore we can topple the leader.
This is completely illegal by the people.
I'm happy to explain it.
It's true.
In 1823, the Soviet Union did not yet exist and other adversaries around the world did not yet exist.
We have expanded the notion that European powers, which were a threat to us, should not interfere in the Western Hemisphere to those other adversaries as well, who you recognize are adversaries.
It seems to me where the big difference here on the panel is, is that you, Dave, at least will acknowledge that America has interests and there are bad regimes.
You're making some crazy claims that the Constitution doesn't allow the United States to be commander-in-chief of the Army.
You're making a crazy claim to Congress.
No, no, no.
I'm saying it doesn't allow them to declare a war.
You're making a crazy claim that it was, excuse me, excuse me.
You're making a crazy claim that it was somehow illegal to follow a court order from 2020 to take out Maduro and arrest him.
Anyway, you're making all sorts of crazy interesting interests.
Is that how we do foreign policy?
Hold on one second, guys.
One second.
I'm happy to.
The difference here is, Dave, you at least acknowledge America has interests.
And you're saying because we sometimes acknowledge that.
Hold on one second.
I'm just trying to get my point out.
Because we sometimes make mistakes, you're saying that we should not pursue those interests.
Or you're saying that the consequences could be worse.
The point that Kyle is making is actually different from yours.
Kyle's point is that America has interests and we should oppose those interests because he thinks that Americans would say theirselves.
No, I'm actually making an argument.
Thank you for the guy.
Hi, Tim.
We're running a bit longer.
Hang on a second, Kyle.
Thank you very much.
Tragic Court Order Confusion00:08:44
I think we've covered this well.
I do want to move, before we run out of time, I want to move to Minnesota and I want to start with you, Coleman, if I may.
For the cameras, before the ceremony, before history is made, every detail is chosen.
From Amazon MGM Studios comes Melania.
This new film takes you inside the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential inauguration through the eyes of the first lady herself, where fashion isn't just style, it's strategy.
Witness the image-defining decisions made behind closed doors, a celebration of duty and glamour.
Melania, only in theaters, January 30th.
This has been another huge story in the last week, and it goes to domestic law.
It's, I think, a complex story, again, that requires a nuanced view.
And I'll lay mine out, Coleman, just for the record.
I've watched this video a dozen times or more from every potential angle.
And it is my belief that it is utterly ridiculous to categorize what this woman, Renee Good, was doing as domestic terrorism.
I see somebody who got a little panicky as the ICE guys came towards her and decided to drive away.
And that the ICE guy in front of her car, who coincidentally a few months earlier, got dragged by a car for a sustained period of time and had injuries as a result, potentially affecting his judgment in a similar situation, I suspect will be a key part of this.
He reacts in an equally panicky way and shoots her three times.
And I don't see him as a cold-blooded murderer who did this deliberately as a way to murder somebody for the hell of it.
I don't see her as a completely blameless part of this.
I think she took decisions which led her down a path which I think were extremely unfortunate and as it turned out, deadly for her.
In other words, I think it's quite a complex story, which if you freeze frame it right down to every grab we've seen, I just, anyone who thinks they have an absolute certainty about what happened here, I think is lying.
And I think they're just, again, moving to the tribal place.
This has to be this because my side believe this, or it has to be this because my side believe that.
Am I wrong?
I couldn't agree more, Piers.
I want to separate two issues really quickly.
I'll get to the tragic death of Renee Goode.
But first, I want to separate the issue of how ICE officers are behaving in Minnesota in general, right?
Right now, social media is being flooded with videos of ICE officers needlessly escalating situations, questioning U.S. citizens who legally do not have to answer any questions.
You know, some ICE officers seem to be under the impression that you're not allowed to film them.
You are allowed to film them.
And even, you know, the worst part of this is that the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security, seems to have indicated to ICE officers that filming them is the same as doxing them, which it's not, right?
So there is, obviously, I think there's probably tons of ICE officers not getting videoed that are doing their jobs responsibly.
And it's a tough job and it's a dangerous job.
And I respect that.
But there's a lot of ICE officers that are just running roughshod over all of their responsibilities as officers.
And they're being fanned on by the administration.
I think that's really important to say up front, that that's a real phenomenon and needs to be talked about.
Now, let's separate that from the issue of Renee Good, who was tragically killed by Jonathan Ross.
Now, here, Piers, you're right to point out there are so many critiques of how this officer and his partner handled the situation.
Why are you, why, you know, officers are trained not to be in front of a car to begin with, right?
That's just, that's one on a laundry list of ways in which this was terrible policing.
However, a lot of prominent Democrats are saying that this is murder.
Murder.
That is a legal term with a legal standard.
Now, if this goes to trial, you know, it's likely to get removed to a federal court, which is going to be favorable for the officer.
And what the jury is probably going to be instructed is if this officer had reason to believe he could have suffered bodily harm, he or his partner could have suffered serious bodily harm, then by statute, he's authorized to use deadly force.
The jury is going to be instructed if he felt he was in serious danger.
Now, we get the benefit of seeing five different angles on the video in slow motion over and over and over again.
So we can come to the conclusion that, yeah, he was out of sight of, he was out of line of the car after those during those second and third shots, but he didn't have that advantage.
He experienced that in real time in the blur of real life.
The whole interaction was less than two seconds and he had one shot at it.
Not only that, his partner had his hand through the window, which, as you said, is precisely the situation that had put him in the hospital six months prior.
It's going to be tough to convince a jury that he didn't have reason to believe he was in risk or his partner of serious.
I think from a legal perspective, I think you're probably right.
And I think a jury may well end up making that determination based on the application of the law.
But Kyle, you know, I talked about both sides taking sort of implacable incendiary positions.
You compared ICE agents to Nazis, described the officer as an ICE thug who murdered a woman on camera by shooting her in the face.
I mean, you're determining there that what we have watched with our own eyes, because we've got the benefit of seeing all the videos, is somebody making a deliberate calculation to murder that woman for no reason?
I think he did.
I think he did.
And why would you do study the video closely?
Well, I'll explain it to you.
So, first of all, these guys are all roided up freaks.
Let's point that out, that these are like proud boys and white nationalists and the dregs of society who have now been given a gun and a badge.
Well, that's a ridiculous generalization.
Again, I don't think that helps.
Let me finish.
But that kind of generalization doesn't help your argument.
It makes you sound equally deranged.
No, no.
I don't care about convincing you guys with your cult of fake nuance.
I care about speaking to the American people who saw what you're doing.
God forbid we should have a nuance.
Yeah, because it's fake nuance.
That's the problem.
You have JD Vance out there saying that this guy should have absolute immunity.
Absolute immunity.
I don't agree.
Somebody he should be able to get off.
This is fucking ridiculous.
Absolute immunity.
I don't agree.
Nor do I want this person.
Nor do I think, Kyle, nor do I think that Renee Goode was deliberately trying to run over this ICE officer.
I just don't think that she was trying to do that or to cause him greatly harm.
I think it was quite clear from the wheel positioning that she was trying to drive away.
And the guy was ignoring his training and standing in front of her.
And he had a past incident, which probably in the moment made him fear the same thing was going to happen.
Piers, I just told you, we have to have one of these objects.
I hardly ever even made one little bit of a moment.
Don't talk at the same time.
The pills were aimed at the cop when she accelerated.
Carl, I'll come back to you.
No, no, no.
Kyle, I will come back to you.
Let Michael just interject on this one point.
This is really important because look, I feel sorry for the woman.
It's very sad that she died.
I'm not in any way happy that she died.
She was in that position, one, because her lesbian partner said, drive, baby, drive, drive.
The lesbian partner then said, it's my fault.
Why is it relevant that she's a lesbian?
Hold on, one second.
Why is that happening to them?
You want Kyle down to Kyle?
Why is it relevant that she's a lesbian?
One second, Kyle.
I'm just trying to get away from that.
Actually, I would say it's irrelevant that she's a lesbian.
Secondly, drive, drive can be an entreaty to drive away, which is what I think she was doing.
Thirdly, the demeanor of Renee Good in the final video that came out shows somebody pretty calm, certainly not confrontational, certainly doesn't look to me like somebody intent on mowing down an ICE officer.
I think she just wanted to get out of it.
Are you suggesting?
Piers, hold on.
Are you suggesting that because a woman says, I'm not mad, that means she isn't mad?
I think anyone who's ever interacted with a woman knows that's not what that phrase means.
Second of all, we don't have to just judge by her words.
She accelerated.
You can look at it in the footage while the tires are aimed at the cop.
And I just, this is a messy.
I feel bad for her.
She was indoctrinated into thinking that you're allowed to drive your car at cops or disobey police orders or block traffic and create a dangerous situation.
This is an important message to all the leftists out there who want to do this.
You cannot drive your SUV into a police officer.
If you do that, you will be shot in the face and deserve it.
She did it.
And it will be very, very sad.
All right, Kyle.
Innocent People Rounded Up00:08:33
I love that we're now doing...
I love that we're now doing character assassination of a 37-year-old soccer mom who got shot in the face three times.
You're fucking disgusting for doing that.
And you know that you're disgusting for doing that.
And if you watch the video closely, he switches hands with his phone to prepare to grab his gun before he was in any danger whatsoever.
Okay.
So this guy wasn't shooting him.
He knew what he was getting himself into.
These people are looking for trouble.
They are going to Minneapolis.
They are cracking skulls.
They are rounding up innocent people.
These people absolutely are Trump's going to stop on everybody in the world.
All right, let me bring in Dave Smith.
Dave Smith, what's your view of this?
Well, I got to say, as much as it pains me to say, I really completely agreed with Coleman on that.
I'm just kidding.
I don't mind agreeing with Coleman.
No, but I thought that was a very thoughtful take.
And I think I agreed with all of that.
I mean, look, like, this is a really tragic thing that happened.
I also don't, I don't think she was trying to run over the officer.
It seemed to me that she was trying to peel out of there, and he got spooked and he shot her.
And look, however you feel about this morally, the fact is that in the United States of America and just about every other government, if law enforcement has you there and telling you, you just can't peel out.
I mean, it's just a really unwise move to try to drive your car away.
And again, you can feel about that however you want to, much like the Iranians shooting rioters who they think are going to topple the government.
Like any government's going to shoot rioters that are trying to topple that government, including ours.
And however you feel about it, that's the way states work.
I do think there's like a broader thing that I would really think that Trump supporters, right-wingers in this country might want to think about.
And I say this as someone who's a real immigration restrictionist.
I mean, to me, that I don't think everyone in the world has a right to enter the United States of America.
I think that the American people have a right to take in whoever we want or whoever we don't want in the same way that I have a right to, you know, have whoever I want at my house for any reason that I choose to.
And so anybody who's here illegally, I think we have a right to remove them.
But I do think you got to start to ask some real questions about what type of juice we're getting for this type of squeeze and real questions of what we're doing to our own neighborhoods here.
I mean, you really do have a situation, as Coleman kind of outlined, where like masked federal agents are kind of acting like thugs, pulling out guns in suburban neighborhoods in front of, and for all of this, for this big show of force that is such a provocative, such a provocation of the radical left in this country and getting them out on the streets.
You know, I've seen the Trump administration says 10 million illegals came in under Joe Biden.
I've seen estimates that are north of 30 million illegals totally in the country.
And for all of this, we're talking about getting like a couple hundred thousand of them.
So in other words, we're not even making a dent on the real problem.
And yet we are like, you know, doing something where more incidents like this are more and more likely.
And I got to say, and I appreciate even that Michael said, like, there's a tragic thing, but I'm sure he saw too.
Some of like the ghoulish response from so many right-wingers like on Twitter and stuff celebrating Dave, it reminded me of the reaction from the left to Charlie Kirk's murder.
Yeah.
There was just a completely different thing.
There was not just an apology.
It's a different situation.
Not just an absence.
Well, I would say different things, but not just an absence of basic empathy and humanity, but a willful, gleeful celebration of somebody's death, right?
And in both cases, I don't think either person deserved to die.
It's just my gut feeling about it.
So at the very least, even if you do think she brought the situation on herself, and I certainly don't think she was blameless in her decision-making leading up to what happened to the confrontation, but even if you believe that, to then sort of gleefully celebrate, she had it coming, she deserved it, blah, blah, blah.
But she's a mother of a young kid and she, you know, is not even 40 years old.
So what have we become as a society when your first thought is not, this is a tragedy.
Whatever you think of what happened here, it's a tragedy that she ends up dead.
I think.
And he hasn't been arrested yet.
And Jonathan Ross hasn't been arrested yet.
And stop it.
We'll think about why that is.
Coleman was writing about that, too.
He's not, listen, he's not going to jail.
I mean, this is just.
And look, the legal system.
There might not even be a trial, Dave.
There might not even be a trial, bro.
But he didn't do anything wrong.
Well, look, but as Coleman pointed out, and I mean, I would say it's slightly different, but the legal system is totally rigged on behalf of cops.
And it's just not the same type of standard for federal law enforcement or for local law enforcement that it is for regular people.
And legally speaking, well, legally speaking, once.
But we have seen cops go to prison too, though.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know the difference?
Legally speaking, there's a car coming up.
There is a cultural aspect to this.
And I'm not going to go back into all this again.
But if this situation had happened in my country, I'm in London right now.
Does that happen in Central London?
I'd be alive.
Well, it's almost unthinkable this kind of situation would happen because we just don't obviously have the gun culture.
And I've always said the problem with the police shootings in America or law enforcement shootings is that they have an understandable presumption, law enforcement, that pretty much everyone may be packing a gun.
In countries like mine, where nobody really has a gun, the police don't have that presumption, so they don't shoot, right?
It's a kind of chicken and the egg thing.
And, you know, it is, as I learned when I took on this issue, Americans don't want to hear it from an English accent.
You got rid of us with guns.
I guess I get you.
Next year is the 250th anniversary where you will all celebrate getting rid of us of guns.
I get it.
But I do think that this, what we, what the rest of the world perceives as a trigger-happy gun country is actually because there are 400 million guns in circulation, a million new guns get sold every month.
So the law enforcement always have a fear, a rational fear, actually, that everyone they stop in any kind of confrontation may have a gun.
And that's right.
If your cops were worried that people might have a gun, maybe they wouldn't be shown up and arresting so many people for tweets and pressing.
Well, I totally agree.
I totally agree.
It was revealed yesterday, 12,000 people have been arrested for social media posts.
It's absolutely bloody ridiculous.
But you know what?
I'd rather that than young mothers getting shot dead for doing a right-hand turn to get away from, you know, ICE officers shouting at her.
Unless she did a left-hand turn first.
And there was a former cop who was arrested.
But before we end this, I just want to end, Dave, you've had this big ding-dong with Dan Bongino, who's now left the FBI.
You said that his legacy is covering for paedophiles.
This alludes to the Epstein scandal.
He responded by a lot of personal attacks on you.
But as we've been talking, Bill and Hillary Clinton have defied a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee about Epstein.
How significant is that, do you think?
Well, it certainly doesn't look good for them.
But I mean, you know, if former presidents are ever held accountable for anything, aside from Donald Trump on the ridiculous Trumped-up charges, but like if we're actually holding politicians accountable for the crimes that they've committed in the past, well, that'll be the first time that I've ever seen it.
So I don't know what Congress is going to do next.
My guess is that they'll probably just do nothing because that's what Congress typically ends up doing in these situations.
But yeah, Dan Bono, listen, I don't know what to say.
Dan Bongino is in this like impossible situation here, which is why he like spazzed out and started talking about my kids and my family and stuff.
And look, I know I did say that his legacy will forever be protecting pedophiles, but again, it's a matter of record.
That is just true.
And so look, Dan Bongino's got a real problem.
You were either lying then or you're lying now.
And you got to somehow, if you're going to come back to this world of doing these shows on the internet, you're going to have to explain that to people at some point.
Like you made this one claim, got in there, turned around and gave a hostage video where you said none of that exists at all.
And now the stuff's been declassified.
So he said he read through the entire files and he knows for a fact that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
But we just found out there's like 5 million documents in the entire file.
So like what exactly is he claiming that he read?
And it's all declassified now.
Declassified Truth Revealed00:01:46
Yes, sure, sure.
But I'm just saying, it's all declassified.
But also, the bottom line.
He can explain what he saw.
Yeah, and the bottom line is people on the MAGA side and the Trump administration, they can all say whatever they want.
The truth is, they took us all up the hill of full and total transparency should they win the last election.
And then suddenly, earlier this, 2025, suddenly the shutters came down.
Nothing was going to get revealed.
And now bit by torturous bit, it's all coming out and it's very devastating and it's causing a lot of carnage with people's jobs and livelihoods and quite rightly, but we are still well coming out.
But we're still well away from full accountability or transparency.
They could just release them.
They've only released 1%.
They could release it all tomorrow.
I don't know why they haven't released them.
All I know is when people in officialdom don't release documents, it's because they don't want people to see them.
And that's just a logical presumption, whether they're on the left or the right.
I've got to leave it there.
Great panel.
I always think the mark of a great panel is when you get to the end of the hour and you feel like you've learned stuff.
And the great thing about you guys is I learned a lot in that hour.
Didn't necessarily agree with all your opinions, but I learned a lot of stuff and I appreciate that.
So thank you all very much.
Great to be with you.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you, Pierce.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow PiersMorgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.