"You're a DISGRACE!" Don Lemon Arrested + Epstein Files | Brett Ratner Speaks!
More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos have been made public in the latest release of the Epstein Files. Lord Mandelson, already sacked as US ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his briefs and accused of taking cash from the sex offender. And the former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him - on royal property. Emails from others including Richard Branson and Elon Musk have gained attention - and there is a lot more to come. Also; Don Lemon has been hailed a speech martyr, even receiving a standing ovation at the Grammys, after his arrest for gatecrashing a church service to film anti ICE protesters. Piers Morgan is joined by Ana Kasparian, Tara Palmeri, lawyer Mark Eiglarsh and Eric Bolling to discuss. Then; he speaks to Brett Ratner, director of ‘Melania’ - who also appeared in the Epstein Files - and producer Marc Beckman, who is a senior adviser to the First Lady. 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. Shen Yun: Visit https://ShenYun.com/PIERS to buy tickets and waive fees. 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
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt00:08:30
I will not be silenced.
I look forward to my day in court.
Did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law?
No, he didn't.
It's not even close.
And I don't do politics.
I do just legal.
He broke into an ongoing church service.
They need him as a useful idiot took their push to open immigration at all costs.
Do you think you're the devil himself?
No, but I do have a good mirror.
What was really going on with Epstein?
Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert.
Follow the damn money.
It always works.
What about just listening to the women?
The picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it.
What is your response to that picture?
More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos were made public in my latest release of the Epstein files.
We're a long way from the waves of high-profile prosecutions we were promised.
But at the very least, a series of high-profile men are being publicly humbled by toe-curling details about the nature of their relationship with a convicted sex offender.
Lord Mandelson, already sacked as US ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his underpants and accused of taking cash from the pedophile.
The former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him on royal property.
Richard Branson offers friendly PR advice about a single man's right to enjoy women.
Anytime you're in the area, we'd love to see you, he writes, as long as you bring your harem.
Elon Musk, who unleashed political havoc by accusing Trump and others of being in the Epstein files, is himself in the Epstein files, asking to be invited to the wildest party on Epstein Island.
There's also chilling footage of Epstein himself in a long interview with Steve Bannon.
The devil himself said, I'm going to exchange some dollars for your child's life.
Do you think you're the devil himself?
No, but I do have a good mirror.
It's a serious question.
Do you think you're the devil himself?
Why would you say that?
Because you have all the attributes.
You're incredibly smart.
You remember the devil is a little bit more...
Somebody knows what?
The devil's brilliant.
You read Milton's Paradise Lost.
No, the devil scares me.
Well, there's a lot more to come as journalists around the world pour through the 3 million pages of documents.
The Trump administration has made so many mistakes over the Epstein files that some people will never be satisfied they have the full story.
Promising total transparency and then inventing endless reasons to be anything but transparent was at best a strategic error.
There may well have been solid reasons for it, but as an exercise in media management and public support, it was a huge mistake.
And funny enough, that's exactly how I feel about the decision to charge Don Lemon.
It seems very plausible that he technically broke the law and incriminated himself while embedded with the ICE protesters who interrupted a church service.
But what are they actually trying to achieve?
President Trump broke the law in the Stormy Daniels case, but convicting him on what most people considered frivolous grounds ended up backfiring massively.
A few weeks ago, Don Lemon was a middling podcaster who has only ever seen in clips of other people calling him a moron.
Now he's a free speech martyr, showing up at the Grammys for a bigger standing ovation than Bad Bunny.
If Don Lemon's convicted, you'll have to see a lot more of him, which nobody really asked for.
And the moral of all these stories is a simple old adage.
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.
Well, let's hear from my panel.
Anna Kasparian, the host and executive producer at the Young Turks, Tara Palmieri, host of the Tara Palmieri show, Mark Eyegloss, who's a criminal defense attorney, Megan Kelly contributor, and host of the Edge, Eric Bolly.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Mark Eyegloss, let's come to you first of all about the pure legality of the Epstein files.
I've seen Todd Blanche and other people representing the administration who've come out and said, look, it's all out there now.
This is what we're going to release, the 3 million documents, videos, images.
We have determined from our analysis that there is nothing in them that constitutes a crime.
Therefore, we can't prosecute anybody.
Now, it strikes me that might be true.
It might be in all these documents.
There is no prima facé evidence of a crime.
It doesn't mean crimes didn't take place.
It just means there isn't the evidence they took place.
What is your assessment?
That is a distinction.
We know crimes took place.
We know there are people who harm children who are not being prosecuted.
We know that.
Anyone who's intellectually honest knows that occurred.
But there's a whole nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
And prosecutors are saying, look, association with Epstein, not enough.
Photos with him and around him, not enough.
There's got to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it falls way short of that.
And I applaud them for that because you don't lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong.
When you lower the bar to get these creeps, which I would love to see them get them, then they're lowering the bar for you.
And God forbid you're accused of something.
But why not just do an investigation?
Yeah, why not just do an investigation?
If you have a lead, you have tips, you've got survivors, victims of Jeffrey Epstein, who have lists of men that they've been trafficked to.
Why wouldn't you follow up on it and actually investigate?
Sure.
Yeah, they should.
And I'm assuming they made that announcement after they looked into it and they don't have additional information that takes you to the highest burden under the law.
If they fell short and they're just going, knee jerk, we don't have a couple of photos of somebody actually doing something, then yeah, they should be condemned for that.
But I'm assuming that they did look into it.
And if they, if there's not enough proof, then they shouldn't just go because maybe or probably someone did something.
Wait a second, though.
You're assuming that they did these follow-up investigations.
Wouldn't those follow-up investigations be inside of the Epstein files?
Wouldn't you sum up?
Just so we're clear.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Don't put me like that.
I'm not assuming anything.
I'm giving you legal analysis to simply suggest if they haven't done a thorough investigation, shame on them.
They should.
If they're making that announcement, let's assume for a moment, not necessarily that it's truthful, that if they did do a thorough analysis and they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then that's it.
You don't then lower the bar to go after someone you think might have done something absent the proof.
That's all I'm saying.
But let's just factor in that there is an Epstein Files Transparency Act, right?
And we are supposed to be seeing all of the files related to that.
Wouldn't you assume that a follow-up investigation would be involved, would be included in the Epstein Files Transparency Act?
Because when I look through these files, I don't see an FBI that is actually doing any follow-up, calling the attorneys for the men that are accused.
They don't appear to be doing anything to follow up on that.
You don't know.
You have no listen, with utmost.
Well, yeah, we open it.
We have the files.
We have the files.
There's a files.
Where else would they be?
There's only been an effort to cover everything up from the FBI.
The FBI has like literally told us that there are no Epstein files.
And then it turns out there are 6 million Epstein files, of which we've only had access to 3 million, which are, of course, heavily redacted.
You know, Epstein responded to an email that was redacted.
And his response to that email was, loved the torture videos.
Why did they redact the name of the individual who sent Epstein torture videos?
Why can't we know who that person is?
And why hasn't that person been prosecuted?
What are the torture videos?
There's a lot that's being uncovered in the Epstein files that make it clear that wrongdoing and criminality occurred and there were no charges and the FBI was part of the cover-up.
Well, if they were, then shame on them and they should be held accountable.
The Epstein Files Cover-Up00:11:20
What I do take exception to is that they committed the worst thing that you can do, and that is include victims' names in documentation.
And it should not have been done.
There are over 40 victims whose names were not redacted.
And the best they can say is oopsie.
To me, that is offensive and outrageous.
They made sure to redact the names of the perverts that were sending torture videos, though.
They made sure to redact that.
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 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.
Well, I agree with Anna that you read some of this stuff and you're like, well, where's the rest of that thread?
Who are they talking about?
What are we getting here?
I want to play a clip from Donald Trump.
This is on, I think, Air Force One as he flew to Florida on Saturday, responding to news that he's in these files.
I didn't see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the Radical M.
Now, Tara, it strikes me that with Donald Trump, having spoken multiple times to David Boyes, one of America's most reputed criminal lawyers for the last 50 years, who represented Virginia Duffray and many other victims and survivors.
He has always been adamant to me that from everything he'd seen, he did not believe that Donald Trump did anything criminal in relation to Epstein.
However, he did say that he thought other men had and that they should be chased and prosecuted.
So it could be, I mean, some of the more out, I think it's important for viewers, for example, to understand that in these files, there's a lot of truly outrageous, shocking things, much of which was immediately looked at and dismissed as fantasy.
And then there's other stuff, which is clearly well documented.
It's coming from the mouths of the people who have been reported on, which is a different kettle of fish when it comes to how you report these things.
I do think it's important to clarify that because some of the stuff that's been in there about Trump is literally people just ringing in to probably hate him, who want to cause him trouble saying outlandish things which are not true.
So that is also part of the mix here, isn't it?
Yeah, I'm sure there are some tips in there that are just that are, you know, anyone can call into the FBI and say things, right?
As for David Boyes, I've been talking to survivors and a lot of them are really upset to see how closely connected he was with Jeffrey Epstein.
If you look through the emails, actually, David Boyes and Jeffrey Epstein exchanged a lot of emails.
And David Boyes was Virginia Duffrey's attorney.
So he knows for a fact that there were many other men that were involved in this case.
As for President Trump, I mean, we know that there was one Jane Doe, Katie Johnson, who filed a complaint three times against him ahead of the 2016 election.
I think any of these tips that have been sent in, they should have been investigated.
I don't see any phone calls to the president or his attorney, Alan Garton.
There's only one email that includes, I think it's Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers for the victims, trying to reach Alan Garton to speak to President Trump.
But I don't see any interaction between the FBI and President Trump's attorneys as they would be, I would assume, would be part of the investigative process when you're going through all the tips that are against him.
I don't think anyone can deny the fact that they were friends for a period of over a decade during the height of Epstein's sex trafficking operation.
And many of the survivors remembered seeing him.
It's, you know, what does.
Okay, but let me bring it.
Let me bring in Eric here because I think it's interesting the timeline on all this, because I've taken a position from the early days of this.
There are two types of deniability here.
There's the plausible deniability, which is people who ceased contact with Epstein once he was convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor.
And then there are the people that carried on consulting with him after that.
And one of those is Elon Musk, who's gone on a kind of tear on his own social media platform, X, you know, vehemently denying he ever accepted any invitation to go onto the Epstein Island or go to any of the parties, any of these things.
And yet we're seeing emails in this dump of documents where he clearly would like to.
He's asking which night is the wildest.
You know, he's planning to come.
The fact that he didn't in the end seemingly go to any doesn't mean that he wasn't keen to.
And this was years after Epstein's conviction.
So I think Elon Musk has some difficult questions to answer that he's apparently very keen not to answer as he tries to present himself as the knight in shining armor that wanted to blow the lid on all this, which is, well, why did you actually have this kind of relationship with Epstein, knowing he's a convicted pedophile?
So Pierce, I think what we're looking at right now, and I'm listening to Tara being outraged about Donald Trump, very conveniently not mentioning a former president, Bill Clinton, who may or may not be claiming he didn't have any involvement with any underage girls, yet there are pictures of him swimming in hot tubs with Jolene Maxwell and some very young looking ladies, not sure if they're married or not.
I wasn't asked about the president.
He's not the president of the United States.
May I just please so the fact that he's a different film of former president is shocking.
Here's my point.
Not that you're being biased at all.
My point is the media right now, people who consume media on the last, you know, three or four tidbits of information.
And what's happened is these guys, some of these guys, and I've been an advocate for getting all of the files out without redactions or as few, you know, as few possible redactions as for national security safety as possible.
And I'm telling you, what I'm feeling is Elon Musk is saying, I wasn't there, had nothing to see.
I had Alan Dershowitz on my show Friday, a couple of days ago, and he now is claiming there was no sexual trafficking.
There was no underage girls.
And I said, Alan, Bill Clinton's on the call logs.
We have pictures of him at the island.
And he said something like, yeah, but that doesn't make him guilty.
No, it doesn't, but an investigation might.
My point is, let's keep digging.
Let's not let them change the narrative, including Donald Trump, including Donald Trump.
Don't let him say, I never did anything.
I don't know.
I would like to know what every one of these people are doing.
Well, I mean, I agree.
I think on that island we're in.
Look, I agree.
I mean, Anna, it seems to me, you've got to go where the evidence is.
The good thing about this latest dump is there's so much of it.
Journalists around the world are pouring through it, obviously.
It's taking a long time.
But like I said, in relation to Elon Musk, for example, we can see a direct conflict between what he is saying publicly and what we are reading with our own eyes about what he intended in terms of these parties and so on.
And my sense about people that do that is, well, if they're not being completely honest about that, then are they being honest about other things?
I don't know the answer, but it certainly starts to raise a lot of our...
I know the answer.
The answer is no.
They're not being honest about other things.
Come on, Pierce.
I mean, you're a smart man.
You're not naive.
I mean, even if they weren't implicated in the Epstein files, anyone who takes what the rich and powerful have to say at face value are being, I mean, unbearably naive.
But look, I would just be wary of anyone who's attempting to make this very serious issue a partisan issue, because make no mistake about it, people from both sides of the political aisle have been implicated in this.
So I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, which is what was really going on with Epstein?
Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert.
He was an incredibly powerful man who was, by the way, in multiple instances in the files that were just released, talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds.
I mean, it just goes on and on.
And so can we discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place and which government that's a special ally of the United States put him up to it?
And do we really want to be allies with a country that kidnaps young girls for rape just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy?
That's the bigger underlying issue here that no one's talking about.
Well, let me bring Eric back in.
I mean, Eric, I would say, Eric, also, just before you respond, I mean, the Bill Gates stuff is fascinating too, right?
Because there you've got a situation where they found a draft of an email that Epstein appears to have constructed for one of Gates' senior aides who fears he's going to get fired.
And it's basically a blackmail note.
Now, we don't know if it ever got sent by the aide to Gates.
We do know that they came to some settlement, some arrangement, apparently.
But in it, it makes all these scandalous allegations, which would have been from his chief aide, who would have known, to Bill Gates to presumably try and either leverage a payoff or to avoid being fired.
He accuses him of getting an STD from a Russian prostitute, I think, at one stage, and then getting medicine to try and stop his then wife getting it and so on.
All pretty tawdry, sleazy stuff.
Now, again, we only know partly this because we don't know if that ever got sent or how true that material is.
But he's there, deeply embarrassing for Bill Gates.
There's also, as Anna touched on there, there are much wider geopolitical dimensions to this.
Not least Vladimir Putin, who has a relationship clearly with Epstein.
What was going on here?
The big question about Epstein is where did all his huge amounts of money come from?
Could it be, because we haven't really worked this out yet, could it be he was being paid by the Russians to compromise a lot of very high-profile American people?
It could well be.
Right?
Or British military or British politicians.
Bill Gates and Geopolitics00:02:12
I will add Larry Summers in that mix, too.
A very liberal darling on the left, former Harvard, former Obama Treasury Department, former Harvard University professor, president.
President, had to resign from AI based on what was in the AI board, what was in the Epstein files.
I will add something.
Anna said something very important.
Where did all the money come from?
How did he make all these connections?
If you watched the Bannon interview within the released Epstein files, it struck me.
And I never knew Jeffrey Epstein.
I've known Bannon for 100 years.
I've never known Jeffrey Epstein.
He's not a smart man.
He wasn't a smart man.
He wasn't an intellectual by any means.
He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups.
And I don't know who.
And I think therein lies some of the most important information that could come from an additional investigation, FBI, CIA, whoever.
But dig into further where those funds came from.
Not a smart man.
Listen to his answers.
It's almost pedestrian in nature, but yet he somehow amassed $60 billion of worth and had the strings to pull at some of the most influential people on the planet.
You've seen their vibrant ads illuminating billboards and train stations for many years.
Now it's time you actually saw the show.
Shen Yun is celebrating its 20th anniversary, a dazzling run, which has seen iconic performances at iconic venues like the Kennedy Center, the London Coliseum, and the Sydney Opera House.
Each season tours to more than 200 cities worldwide.
You'll see classical Chinese dance, a live orchestra, and stunning animated backdrops, which bring to life 5,000 years of Chinese civilization.
World-class performers in flawless costumes tell a story of myths, legends, warriors, and heavenly realms, all set to stunning music.
It's been described as inspiring, uplifting, and life-affirming.
And if you're looking for an unforgettable gift for your family, I really recommend that you check it out.
Visit shenyung.com slash peers to waive all ticketing fees when you order.
That's shenyun.com slash peers.
And you know what's interesting?
Dershowitz Lawsuit Threats00:15:54
Mortara, what's interesting to me is in the UK, we're seeing very high-profile people dropping like dominoes as a consequence of these files.
Lord Mandelsohn is finished.
He's had the whip from the Liberal Party removed last night.
He's likely to lose his place in the House of Lords, and so he should.
He might well face criminal prosecution for corruption in public office, given the stories about the money that was coming from Epstein in what appears to have been a trade for top secret information about forthcoming policy business initiatives by the UK government when Mandelson was in the government.
So there's a lot of stuff going on with him, but he's finished.
You know, the former Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, he's finished.
And it's a question really for him that the British prime minister now says he should put himself in front of the investigative authorities under oath and say what he actually knows.
I think most British people agree with that.
So you're seeing a lot of very famous people being dragged down by this in the UK.
We're not seeing the same thing happen in the US.
We're seeing a lot of names, but we're not seeing any consequence so far.
Do you think we're going to?
No, I don't, because I think at this point, we haven't seen, we still haven't even seen 3 million of the files of the 6 million.
And they could be withholding them for national interest purposes, which means that there will continue to be gaping holes in the various theories that everyone put forward about who was he working for.
I've always believed that Jeffrey Epstein was doing, was conducting some sort of compromise for who, you know, we still don't know.
And I do think that multiple times.
Right.
And I do think the United States is still protecting Prince Andrew in these files.
I think there's he's not mentioned.
His relationship with Saudi Arabia isn't mentioned very frequently.
There's so many connections across the world that we all know about, people who have studied the Epstein story that we still won't be getting in the files.
And because we don't have the kind of leadership within our administration, there's no independent counsel leading this.
We don't know what we don't know right now.
And there are 3 million files being withheld.
And I don't think anyone will face consequences because they haven't.
Right.
I suspect we will, but it's going to take more time in America.
Mark, you wanted to jump in?
Yeah.
Okay.
So anyone who had anything to do with his nefarious criminal conduct should be punished.
I think that's all wonderful.
That's what we all want.
The problem also is, you know, when we say their name is in the Epstein file, that now has become associated with, so they must have then been on his plane or been to his island and then maybe participate in having sex with children.
That's a real problem too.
We got the pitchforks up.
Yeah.
And there are people who are involved in construction projects who are simply meeting people through him.
They went on some traveling with him, but had nothing to do with going to his island.
I don't like this big net being thrown out there and catching it.
Let me finish.
And catching anyone who had mere association with him, but had nothing to do with his abhorrent behavior.
Okay, Mark, can I just tell you, as someone who's covered this story and spoken to many, many, many survivors, it was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about.
There were always young girls around.
He was a convicted felon, and all of these high net worth people continued to spend time with a sex offender.
Every single person who was ever around Epstein then knew that he was having sex with children.
Is that your position?
Because that's what I'm saying.
No, but Mark, hang on.
Everybody post 2009 knows he's a convicted people.
100%.
We're talking before then.
So they can't part of the files.
They can't pretend they didn't know what he was.
Well, of course.
No, I'm not talking about that.
That's indefensible.
I'm talking about people before then who were merely in some letter or reference now as part of the Epstein file.
And then all of a sudden, that means erroneously, somehow that they were sleeping with children.
Get those who did.
I want those who did to be punished.
But those who are merely associated with him, because the guy was a big networker and a big business guy, shouldn't be thrown to the walls.
What is interesting?
I mean, Richardson.
Hang on, Tara.
Richard Branson, for example, came out with a statement that was quite interesting.
He said that after some initial interaction with Epstein, he then began to have some suspicions, got his team to look into Epstein, discovered the conviction, discovered some other stuff, didn't like it, and ended all contact.
Now, assuming that is right, and I've known Richard a long time.
I'm sure that's probably correct if he's saying that publicly, then that is what a lot of people should have done.
But what is clear is a lot of people not only didn't do that, but a lot of them made statements, whether it's Andrew, whether it's Mandelson, whether it's others, where they categorically denied having anything to do with him after his conviction.
And now we know they were lying.
And again, it comes out of the way.
We know that you're right.
But my point being, if they're lying about the timeline, then what else are they lying about?
Would be my obvious question.
Let me just, I want to read what Elon Musk has said, just to be fair to him.
He says, nobody's fought harder for full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abuse children more than I did, knowing full well the legacy media far left propagandists and those who are actually guilty would one admit nothing, two, deny everything, three, make counter accusations against me.
I knew I'd be smeared relentlessly despite never having attended his parties or been on his Lolita Express plane or set foot on his creepy island or done anything wrong at all.
Nevertheless, the extreme pain of being accused of being the opposite of who I am was worth it.
The strong must protect those who cannot protect themselves, especially vulnerable children.
I will gladly accept any amount of future pain to do more to protect kids and give them a chance to grow up and have happy lives.
And again, what I would say back to Elon Musk is: okay, let's take you at face value.
You know, only you know so far, but this flies completely in the face of the emails we're reading, which is that years after the conviction of Epstein for paedophilia, you are very, very keen to go to this island that you now scorn.
And so the public statements are not consistent with the real-time correspondence that we're all seeing with our own eyes.
I mean, look, to Mark's point, so far, there's nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk.
Like there isn't enough evidence to actually prosecute him for anything.
But I agree with you in that in the court of public opinion, it's not a good look, as is the case with our Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who said that he had cut off all communication with Epstein in the early 2000s.
And then now we're learning that he was actually communicating with Epstein in 2012.
Again, that in and of itself is not enough to prosecute him of any criminality, right?
But at the same time, why are you lying to the American people?
And more importantly, why were you so keen to, you know, the word you like to use, why are you so keen to reach out to and have communication with Epstein after he had already been convicted and yes, got that sweetheart deal as a result of Alan Dershowitz, you know, negotiating it?
Why are you still willing to talk to this guy?
And by the way, one other thing I want to mention about Dershowitz in particular, because anyone who mentions Dershowitz's relationship with Epstein, as I have done in the past, gets threatened by Dershowitz with a lawsuit.
And I never retract my statements because I would love nothing more than to go through that discovery process.
But in the files that were just released, you know, there's an email that Norm Finkelstein sent out, essentially condemning Dershowitz because Jane Doe number three said this in sworn testimony.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently.
Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein.
So my question to everyone who has Dershowitz on as if he's some sort of expert who should be taken seriously, who has an opinion that should be valued in any way, will you please stop having that disgusting man on your show?
No, no, Eric.
I won't.
Hold on, guys.
Hold on.
I know him.
I agree.
I agree.
And I'm fine.
Okay, Eric.
Eric.
And I told him.
Eric, point blank, you cannot rewrite history, Alan.
We know way too much.
You can claim you're innocent all you want, but you can't go and say, therefore, now all of a sudden Bill Clinton never got involved in these things.
No, no, he literally said to me on Eric and take a look at it that he's a fairly surprising.
He's the one who got that disgusting serial rapist and sweetheart deal and he lied about the Epstein files.
He's a disgrace.
It's disgraceful to have him on your show.
He went and refuted all.
He refuted all minor sex trafficking on that.
I was blown away.
I said, Alan, who are you?
Why are you doing this?
Pierce, I was down with you and Alan once before where he claimed to know everything.
He's still trying to stay in the media this way.
I think he's feeling a little bit more confident, but I'm not going to not have him on Anna.
Want to continue to hold his feet to the fire, which I did.
Watch the interview.
And if you think I wasn't hard enough on him, I'll eat it.
But I think I was.
Can I just one final thought?
We're having a lot of speculation on what happened, what didn't happen.
There's an easy, it's not easy.
There's a very effective way to find out what really happened.
Follow the damn money.
It always works.
Find out how he made his money.
What about just listening to the women who have testified?
What about the women who have testified?
What about the survivors who have testified under oath?
Why is their word not enough?
Why do we have to follow the money to know what happened?
No one said it's not enough.
I actually think we need to think we need.
You know what?
I think we listen to the women.
We listen to the women.
We follow the money trail and we get people under oath, right, with a penalty of perjury.
That tends to concentrate the mind, right?
Okay, look, I want to pivot to the other big story of the weekend, which is the arrest of Don Lemon, former CNN anchor.
Actually, he took over my office when I left CNN.
So I've known Don a long time.
You know, I thought about this quite long and hard.
Let's take a look at, first of all, a bit of the scene that created the environment for his arrest.
This is the original incident.
This is a juxtaposition.
This shows you just how divided America is.
When you look at the protesters here and then you look at the people there who are praying, and you know what is an interesting thing?
If these two groups could just get together, they might figure out what to do.
Instead, I don't know if the people here are interested in talking to the protesters, but perhaps they should come in, pray together, and talk together.
Last night, the DOJ sent a team of federal agents to arrest me in the middle of the night for something that I've been doing for the last 30 years, and that is covering the news.
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless of other journalists who do what I do.
I stand with all of them, and I will not be silenced.
I look forward to my day in court.
Thank you all.
So, let me start with Mark Eyegloss again from a legal perspective here.
So, you know, I thought about this long and hard, heard all the different arguments, everyone coming out, a lot of them from partisan traps to very quickly either exonerate or convict him.
And I kind of reached the conclusion, as I do with most situations involving journalists in this situation, which is you shouldn't be criminalizing journalists doing their job.
You may not like Don Lemon.
You may not like the way he behaved that day.
You may not like the way he's behaved since.
But to go after a journalist who was clearly there reporting on what was happening, I think crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed whether you're on the left or the right.
And it seemed to me a bit of tit for tat for what happened to some people who was kind of citizen journalists on January the 6th who got put in prison.
This is revenge.
They're going after now people on the left for doing similar things and so on.
I think it's a very slippery slope.
But Mark, from a pure legal perspective, did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law?
No, he didn't.
It's not even close.
And I don't do politics.
I do just legal.
And the First Amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did, cover an event.
So those who say that he did interfere with people's ability to worship, there's a difference between incidental interference and intentional interference.
One needs intentional interference to be found guilty of a criminal act.
He wasn't there, it appears from the fact that he intentionally, hold on.
I was just speaking.
I wasn't through with my thoughts.
He intentionally was there to gather facts, but his intention falls way short, factually, of intending to be there to interfere with people's ability to worship.
So again, if there's just incidental interference, that's not enough.
And clearly the chilling effect is there too.
The message goes out that anyone who's merely present at an event can be arrested.
And that's real problematic.
Mark, he was, Eric.
He was there to gather facts.
He broke into an ongoing church service.
He busted in.
That's not an accidental.
Oh, I didn't mean to break up your story.
What facts was Don Lemon looking for, Mark?
What facts was he looking for?
He was looking to create a scene, to get the cameras rolling, to get his own face on the evening news, which he did.
And I said, when the minute it happened, they just propped up Don Lemon, not because they like his journalism, because they need him as a useful idiot to their push to open immigration at all costs.
And by the way, Mark, I would argue with you that I think protecting people's right to worship is right up there, if not superseding the First Amendment.
I don't disagree.
The right for journalists to cover a story.
We don't disagree on that.
The question is, again, it may be, again, everything is fact sensitive.
Was he covering this as a journalist?
Was he reporting this on live stream, which I was told?
If he was, the question is, do they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his purpose was to interfere with people's right to worship or whether he was there covering it as a journalist that may have interfered incidentally with people's right to worship?
And they're in line with the question.
Well, let me bring in Anna here, but I think the crucial distinction for me is you can certainly construct an argument that the protesters had a pre-planned intention to disrupt people in their place of worship, right?
So the question for me was then, is Don Lemon part of the protest group or is he tangentially a journalist who knows it's going to happen, goes in and reports on what happens, but he's not actually a member of the protest group doing the intervention.
And that's where for me I felt from a legal perspective, I think it's hard to prove that he is not one removed from this.
Journalists Arrested at Protests00:06:34
He's not actually doing the intervening.
He's gone in and he's watching and he's observing and he's reporting.
Yeah, I mean, look, first let me just say I really appreciate your analysis on this, Mark, especially from a legal perspective.
And I agree with you overall, Pierce.
I think that, you know, the evidence that we've seen so far indicates that Don Lemon got a tip that this protest was going to happen.
He wanted to cover it.
Now, of course, he does have his own biases.
There's no question about that.
But the real question is, was he there to participate in said demonstration or was he there to document it?
And obviously this is going to play out in court, but the point that I agree with you most on is in regard to how counterproductive it was to arrest him in the first place.
Let me first note, though, that there was a second independent journalist who was also arrested as a result of covering what happened during this protest.
I think that sets a really, really bad precedent when it comes to journalism.
Regardless of what you think about Don Lemon or the independent journalist, you should be able to have journalists there to document what's going on.
That is their job.
But in regard to me, it seems to me, Tara, that all that's happened out of this is Don Lemon has got absolutely what he's been dreaming of ever since he got turfed out of CNN and started his own business is he's now a martyr.
You know, I watched him at the Clive Davis.
Got a clip, I think, of him getting a standing ovation from the star study crowd at the pre-Grammys party that Clive Davis has every year.
take a look i mean don lemon's had a long dream a long dream
He's had a dream to be at the Grammys or Grammy parties, and that happens.
He's the Martin Luther King of the Grammys.
Listen, like this is part of the job of being a journalist.
Like, it's one of the first things you do.
You cover movements, you cover protests, you go where things happen.
If you had to go into a cave to interview the Taliban, should I be arrested because I'm in there with the Taliban if I witness violence there?
I'm not a co-conspirator.
Eric, if you know anything about journalism, you would know that being present at an event does not mean you are, as a journalist, documenting it.
Does not mean that.
They weren't protesting.
Tara, they weren't protesting.
They were trying to worship, by the way.
And if you're going to hide behind that cloak of the world, a journalist can break into anywhere they want, trespass, because under the guise of I'm doing a story, that's insanity.
There has to be a line drawn.
They broke into an ongoing church service.
Those parishioners weren't protesting anything.
They weren't supporting ICE.
Did the pastor happen to have some sort of connection?
Who cares?
That doesn't.
So any under your theory, I, as a journalist, I have a White House pass hard pass.
I'm a journalist to cover Trump.
I can go anywhere I want with that, break into any, I can break into a mosque and find out how many Muslims there are illegal just because I have that pass?
Of course not.
I mean, if you were following law enforcement or you were following in a news event, I don't know the exact legality, but I know on your the First Amendment, there are many, we are covered under the First Amendment.
And the second you create this, these lines, like what about these right-wing influencer journalists, whatever you want to call them, that follow break-ins into Planned Parenthood.
Should they not be allowed to do that?
They should be in the past.
They don't break in, Tara.
They get arrested outside the Planned Parenthood.
Let me offer some guidance.
Let me offer some guidance.
Okay, just real quick, real quick.
Eric, like, let's say you are covering some sort of protest where a group of people break into a mosque as people are worshiping.
You're there documenting it as a reporter, right?
I would be livid if, let's say, the Biden administration's DOJ decided to arrest you, because at the end of the day, you work in media, you're documenting what's happening.
Now, the individuals who took part in the actual demonstration did break a law.
They did violate the right to practice your faith, to worship, and they should face consequences for that.
I mean, that's the point.
You signed up for the public.
Let me offer some guidance that under Pierce's definition of what happened or question about what happened, Don Lemon wasn't there to cover it.
Don Lemon was the leader of that, whatever that break-in was.
Let me jump in here.
Let me bring Market.
Let me bring Market again from a Market.
Let's change the facts.
Let's say that Lemon, while he was there, chanted.
He directed the protesters.
He blocked aisles.
He starts doing that.
Then he is participating.
It's very different.
Absent those facts.
He's there covering, and I agree with Pierce on this one.
Again, you don't want to have that chilling effect when you have journalists going in to cover something and you get the wrong politics and then people get arrested.
That's a real slippery slope and a real dangerous scenario.
I would say you guys are opening up a very dangerous can of worms, allowing or covering for journalists.
And Tara points out that, yeah, there are right-wing little influencers who are dying for the same opportunity that Don Lemon just presented himself with to become some sort of hero to your side.
And if it entails joining protests or quote-unquote covering protests, but you're right there with them and also getting cameras in the face of the people that they're protesting against, you know, you're more than a planned parent.
And he's, yeah, they do that all the time.
They're just not being arrested, but they literally do it all the time.
Who do you think's covering the Planned Parenthood protests?
Again, Tara.
They go inside the Planned Parenthoods, which is like a private property and they do this.
And they don't get arrested.
I don't feel it's any different.
I think they're right.
You know, the O'Keefe who goes inside an abortion clinic and tapes.
I have a problem with that too.
Critics vs True Audience00:05:07
Okay.
Well, I think the one thing I would say, just to conclude this, is people need to be intellectually consistent, right, in the way they view these things.
And if you start getting tribal where it's okay for your side, but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest.
We saw it all with the Jimmy Kimmel saga a few months ago.
We're seeing it again now.
We've seen it over the ice agents.
You've got to be consistent.
It doesn't matter if it's your side or not.
What is your view about people that do XYZ?
And then you've got to be consistent each time it's done by anybody.
Then I can respect you.
The moment people chop and change because of their political persuasion, I lose all respect for them.
But that was a great panel debate.
Thank you all very much.
Thanks, Pierce.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, finally, it's fair to say that before it's released this weekend, reviews for the new Melania documentary film from mainstream press were less than glowing.
A cheeseball infomercial of staggering inertia, said variety.
Dispiriting, deadly, and unrevealing, said the UK Guardian.
Glossy, but curiously impersonal, said the New York Times.
However, judging by the box office, the film has been a smash hit.
Melania is officially the highest-grossing documentary of the last 10 years.
And joining me now are Melania's director, Bratt Retner, and producer Mark Beckham, who's also a senior advisor to The First Lady.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Welcome.
Thanks for having us, Pierce.
Long time.
It's been a long time.
It certainly has.
And I've got to say, I watched the movie.
I enjoyed the movie.
I'm not an impartial viewer of the movie.
I've known The First Lady 20 years since I first did Celebrity Apprentice and spent a lot of time around the Trumps.
I've seen her many times over the years.
I've always liked her.
I think she has, in private, she's very warm.
She's funny.
She's smart.
She's, I think, very self-aware.
And I think in public, she's been remarkably, I think, skilled in the way she's been a first lady amid unbelievable pressure.
You know, this is somebody who's had to watch her husband get shot at, nearly assassinated.
People try to put him in jail.
Obviously, all the scandal that swirls around with Trump at any given moment, all the division and contention and so on.
And yet, amid it all, has been this very calm rock in the form of Melania, quite mysterious in many ways, if you don't know her.
So I watched it and I enjoyed it.
And I think that what's interesting to me is watching people review it who clearly have an agenda against the Trumps.
They're trashing it.
And conversely, people who love for Trump's all saying it's the greatest movie of all time.
I don't think it's either.
I don't think even you would say it's the greatest movie of all time.
But what's been your assessment of how this has played out?
Well, it shows, I think, everyone that you can't really trust the critics.
You know, we have something that's unprecedented.
We have an A cinema score.
I don't know how many of my, I don't think any of my movies that I've made in the past have ever had an A cinema score.
So, you know, usually a good movie is a B plus or an A minus.
So it shows you the separation between the critics and the audience, the true audience.
I mean, to have, I think it's the largest spread.
I think the number on Rotten Tomatoes is maybe 10%.
It fluctuates between 6 and 10% based on new reviews coming in.
And then it's got a 98 or 99% audience favor.
So it's an interesting case study, if anything, to say the least, about how far away the critics are.
You know, film criticism when I grew up was an art form.
Even though there was a bad review on a movie, if you read it, there was always an intellectual approach to it.
And you still were interested in seeing the movie, whether it had a good review or a bad review.
And Rotten Tomatoes was kind of like the beginning of the destruction of the film business, in my opinion.
Even though, interestingly enough, I had read somewhere that Rush Hour was the reason why Rotten Tomatoes was created.
So I say that as is the destruction of the film business because now it's like if you have a if your tomato's rotten, people aren't interested in seeing the movie.
And I think this film will kind of be groundbreaking in the analysis of film critics versus audience interest.
You know, Piers, if I may just jump in for a second.
Just to make it simple, to put it in simple terms, The First Lady and Brett Ratner put together an enjoyable film.
It's created in a very cinematic, highly rich, stylized way.
Great sound, great music.
And it's a story that's never been told before.
And this guy right here, Brett Rattner, was able to, I think, break ground and revolutionize the concept of documentary.
Revolutionizing Documentary Film00:12:56
Never do we see the First Lady sitting there with an empty warehouse behind her as a talking head.
Brett was able to go ahead and tell her story, this unprecedented story of an individual moving back into the White House as First Lady of the United States, covering intimate moments with her family, her career, and her philanthropy in a way that's never been done before.
I give this guy a ton of credit.
He put it together in a way that's groundbreaking.
And that's why the rankings from the consumers are so high.
It's enjoyable.
But it is Mark.
It's a blue-red thing, isn't it?
Where in the blue states, they're not going to see it and they hate the Trumps and so on.
In the red states, they love the Trumps.
They're flocking to see it.
A lot of women in particular are flocking to see it.
I can see why.
I've said to Milania before that to me, she's right up there with Jackie Kennedy as one of the great fashion icons of all the First Ladies.
And if you don't agree with that, either you're blind or you're just blindly partisan because she clearly is.
You've advised the First Lady, I know, for a while.
The thing that struck me was interesting was it's quite a big move for her to go public like this.
You know, I once said to her, you know, you remind me a bit of the queen mother and the queen in the UK royal family.
You always had a mantra, never complain, never explain, and rarely be heard speaking in public.
And she went, I know that quote, and I like that quote, and I tried to follow that quote.
Yeah, here she is, sort of peeling back the curtain and saying, okay, this is a bit more of me than I've ever shown you.
That's not something you do lightly.
And it's way beyond fashion.
For example, Brett was able to capture an initial meeting that triggered a series of events ultimately leading to the rescue of a human life in Gaza.
And I can let Brett talk to that a little bit more.
But there were so many moments in this 20-day period that Brett was able to capture with the First Lady that today continue to play themselves out.
The work she's doing with the United Nations General Assembly for fostering the future together.
It's all, it's really an interesting thing.
This is much more than a fashion explosion.
There's a lot more important action that the first lady takes and that Brett captured during this time period.
Well, Brett, one of the moments for me that I found really poignant, and it just really cut, I think, to the reality that you're public property when you're a first lady, as you are president.
But you've also got to deal with real-life private stuff.
And there's a day in the 20 days where she starts the day at the memorial for Jimmy Carter, former president, obviously.
And then that evening, she's in a cathedral, a church, lighting a candle for her mother who died a year ago that day.
And her and her mother were very, very close.
So a very emotional day for her personally and a very big, big day for her publicly.
And they're both around grief and people dying and being in places of worship.
And I thought you brought that together really powerfully because it showed me that's the reality of being in public life is you've got to somehow juggle both things.
Yeah, she said she talks about it in the film.
You know, her day job is as the first lady, but she also has to be a mother, you know, a wife.
She has so many obligations.
It's interesting that you say this because, you know, as the director in the film crew, we have breaks in between, right?
We film and then we take breaks, but I'm there from the moment she wakes up in the morning till she goes to sleep.
And on those breaks, when we're either eating or changing out equipment, she's having high-level meetings in between.
So her passion for her role as first lady, I was saying to my producer, I was saying, we should have a second crew just filming the meetings that she's having in between the filming because those are as important as the stuff that we're filming.
And she's so passionate about being the first lady in her service.
And that was really, to me, incredibly impressive how seriously and how passionate she is, how seriously she takes this role as first lady, which is unprecedented, obviously.
And really also the love between and the mutual respect and admiration between her and her husband.
That's another thing that I was very proud of.
That the film has the utmost.
Yeah, I want to bring Mark in on that because I've known the Trumps, like I said, 20 years.
So from soon after they got married in the early 2000s.
And everybody else has always told me she hates him.
She's the ice maiden.
It's a transactional thing.
She doesn't want to be there.
Blah, And I've always said, you really don't get these two.
I said, when you actually are around them together, they're very easy together.
They're seemingly very happy together.
There's a real, I think, mutual understanding of each other, which is often lost on the public.
Perhaps because a lot of the public can't view Trump through a normal lens at all.
But, you know, what is your sense?
You've obviously been around them as a couple.
You know, my instinct is that warts and all, good, bad, and ugly, they have a pretty good marriage.
Piers, they've been together since the 1990s.
I've been working with the first lady since before Baron was born over two decades.
And I can tell you that she has a ton of respect for him.
We talk about it in her best-selling book.
I see it firsthand.
It's her husband.
They have an interesting life, right?
He's a hardworking person and he's the president.
So he's constantly working, constantly on the road, as is she.
She's the hardest working person I have ever met.
We never take a day off.
It doesn't matter if it's the weekend, a holiday, late at night.
So the interaction between these two people is really like any other husband and wife.
Brett captures it on the film.
Those moments that people are curious about, they shine.
And it's all there within those 20 days.
It's really very natural.
Brett, I want to turn to two elephants in the room we have an address.
So the first one's about the movie.
Amazon acquired the rights for $40 million, apparently spent as much as that again on marketing.
The total cost estimated around $75 million.
Many say, look, this is just a vanity thing by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, to curry favor with the Trump administration and so on.
What is your response to that?
And could this movie actually make money given the roaring star this hat?
Well, first I'll respond to the first part, which is I can tell you for sure that the president had no idea that, and Mark can speak to that more, no idea that we were attempting to make a documentary.
I don't know at what point did he discover it, but I know for a fact that he had no idea.
She and Mark is the only two people I discussed.
I was sworn to secrecy and we didn't want it to leak, obviously.
And I know that he was not aware that we were even making the documentary up to the time that we got the offer from Amazon.
So this is no quid pro quo.
It's completely BS.
It doesn't, it literally is just false.
It's just not true.
And what was the other question?
The economic feasibility.
Oh, yeah.
So yeah, that's really frustrating.
I'm sorry.
Well, could it make money?
Because the truth is, in the world today that we're living, it's all about streaming.
We wanted, Melania and I decided, and it was really Melania's idea.
I can't even take credit for it, but I was so happy because being a filmmaker, there's no better way to show a film, a piece of work of mine, in a theater.
You know, you hear Chris Nolan and all these big filmmakers talking about we got to have a theatrical experience.
They were fighting the streaming opportunities first and said, you got to have this movie.
So Melania wanted this movie to be made because I said to her, I'm not a documentary filmmaker.
I've never made a documentary.
And she's like, that's exactly why I want you because you make movies for the big screen.
So with that in mind, knowing that Amazon had purchased MGM, and yeah, it's fantastic that we had a great, fantastic box office.
But at the end of the day, the world is going to see this streaming globally.
And we want the biggest audience to see this movie.
So will it make money?
I don't know how the economics within Amazon works, but I know if a lot of people around the world watch it, it will be successful.
Piers, just to jump on the record real quickly, I remember the day that Melania and I had the conversation.
Melania came up with the creative concept.
I am the only one that negotiated this deal on her behalf.
I never had any interaction whatsoever with Jeff Bezos.
President Trump was never involved.
I'm the only one that had part in that negotiation.
As far as the feasibility on the economic side, I believe that they didn't pay enough.
This film is catapulted right away into a great opening weekend.
It's the highest opening in documentary history over the past 14 years.
And we're just catapulting now.
It's only been available for three days worldwide.
Think about the deal, Piers.
They have the theatrical release, then streaming of the film.
And remember, we're going to be releasing a docuseries during the summer, which Brett will unpack a richer story.
And then those two elements, the film and the docuseries, will carry through over the next three years.
So, to correct all of these, you know what it sounds like to me?
It sounds like to me, you guys are in real time are gaming the negotiations for Melania the sequel.
We undersold this one.
Amazon MGM took advantage of us.
Brett, I want to just switch gears quickly to the very serious and big stories in the news, the Epstein files.
As you know, the picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it.
What is your response to that picture?
And what is your response to the wider scandal of the Epstein files?
Oh, well, that particular picture, that picture in particular, happened around 20 years ago, 2019, 20 to 21 years ago, because that is a photograph of my fiancé who invited me to this event, and that's where the picture was taken.
I had never been in contact with Jeffrey Epstein before that photo, and I was never in contact with him after.
So that's a picture of me and my fiancé at some event.
Wow.
So who was the fiancé, if you don't mind me asking?
You know, she doesn't want me sharing her name in the case, but that's my fiancé, 100%.
Was my fiancé.
You're not still with that.
I'm not with that.
I was going to say, you're not still with that.
He's not engaged.
It's the world's longest engagement.
20 years ago, I was engaged to her when that photo was taken.
Right.
Yes.
And your position is you never met Epstein before or after that picture at night?
No, never.
Never.
Never.
What is your opinion of the Epstein file scandal?
As this more and more stuff cascades out, more and more people, very high-profile people, are dragged in.
What is your view of this?
I mean, it's horrible.
You see, I've been somehow sucked in, you know, through an image.
So, you know, there's so many stories about so many different people.
It's hard to really follow and track what's truth and what's not truth.
You could see where one photograph kind of puts me there with him, and then all the stories start to spin out.
So I don't really know because I didn't know him.
It wasn't really my world.
It's not really my world.
Piers, I could tell you, and I'm not sitting here as his defense attorney.
I could tell you that this guy has been in the trenches making the film, promoting the film.
And what's been top of mind for him has been building this number one highest opening for Melania.
And I think that, you know, as far as that topic goes, I could understand why he might not have a bigger point of view.
You know what?
I put the question to you about the picture.
You've given a pretty emphatic answer.
Independent Uncensored Media00:01:32
We'll leave it there.
Brett and Mark, thank you both very much.
Congrats on the success of the film.
Of course.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Piers.
Happy to see you.
Happy to see you and out of the hospital.
Thanks for having us.
Yeah, thank you.
Not as happy as I'm.
The president rang me actually a couple of days ago, and we were discussing the perils of steps, little steps that can cause enormous amounts of damage if you trip on them.
But anyway, it's great to talk to you both.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Thank you.
Piers Morgan Arsenson 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 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.
Hello.
Welcome to Spielatroben.
Meet now at the back, and we'll go to the next step.