Kari Lake and Piers Morgan dissect the White House Correspondents' Dinner assassination attempt, criticizing Hilton security lapses and media bias while debating whether inflammatory rhetoric incites violence. They analyze the King Charles III state visit, contrasting the monarch's composure with Trump's volatility amidst UK turmoil. Ultimately, the episode argues that online vitriol and accountability failures drive political violence, complicating diplomatic efforts during a fractured era. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
A Dangerous Profession00:02:19
He said, Get down, that's gunshots.
And I said, What?
I looked at him like, What are you talking about?
I said, Gunshots.
This mental moron probably got his battle plan from playing video games and studying on the internet.
Surely you don't think that anything that happened at the White House Correspondents' Dinner was set up or staged, do you?
There's a reason why, if this isn't staged, why three people tried to shoot him.
These people are crazy and deranged, and you wonder why people are out here trying to kill President Donald Trump.
Please spare me.
Informative pearl clutching about how it is only people on the left.
We've been through a spate in the last couple of years of leftist political violence, the likes of which this country has never seen.
The king's private conversations with the U.S. president are usually kept secret, but when the monarch arrives in Washington, D.C. today, we can imagine they might compare notes on one surprising trait they both share absolute serenity in the face of extreme danger.
32 years ago, shots were fired by a protester as the then Prince Charles stood on stage in Sydney, Australia.
The monarch gave a masterclass back then in the stiff upper lip, stopping briefly to adjust his cufflinks before laughing it off.
President Trump, steely in his own unique way, was back at the podium joking and selling his new ballroom less than two hours after a gunman attacked the White House correspondence dinner.
Nobody told me this was such a dangerous profession.
If Marco would have told me, maybe I wouldn't have run.
Maybe I would have said, I'll take a pass.
No, it's a dangerous profession, but I don't view it that way.
Look, I'm here to do a job.
Well, no matter your views on the U.S. president, his ability to remain calm and even amused after what looks like a third attempt in his life is pretty remarkable.
The problem is he shouldn't have been put in that position again.
The Secret Service may have done a good job in safely shutting down the attack once it began, but the fact is the alleged gunman was able to breeze past security, arms to the teeth, and sprint toward a ballroom where everybody in the presidential line of succession, pretty much, was sitting.
Security Failures at the Ballroom00:05:38
We then saw Vice President JD Vance and the President being bundled to safety before the whole of the Cabinet and eventually the entire D.C. media was evacuated.
Security has to be flawless for an event of this magnitude, with zero exceptions.
The gunman actually mocked the lack of security in his twisted manifesto that he released a few minutes before the attack, writing, This level of incompetence is insane, and pointing out that had he been an Iranian intent on doing something bad at that event, it could have been an awful lot worse.
This is embarrassing for the US.
At worst, it's another catastrophic failure.
And one of the reasons why so many lurched immediately to conspiracy theories is that so many questions remain unanswered about the previous attempts on Trump's life.
There's a crisis of political violence in the United States.
Nobody wants to find out what happens to that tinderbox if the next attack ends in disaster.
Well, in a moment, we'll be debating this and the fallout with my panel.
But first, Senior Advisor to the US Agency for Global Media, Carrie Lake, joins me.
Carrie, welcome back to Uncensored.
You were at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
When was the first you realized that something serious was happening?
Well, we had just finished our salads, and the staff at the Hilton started to bring around the table trays, and they were setting them up at each table.
And we heard some loud noises, and I just assumed it was this room full of 2,500 people and a lot of wait staff dropping things or potentially the sound of dishes, et cetera.
And I was sitting next to Chris Ruddy, and he said, Get down, that's gunshots.
And I said, What?
I looked at him like, what are you talking about?
I said, gunshots.
He said, yeah, that was gunfire.
And we all just ducked down in our chairs.
We didn't hit the floor.
At first, I just didn't believe it because it's just such a surreal thing.
You're in a situation like that and it doesn't feel real.
But I looked up, I popped my head up and looked around and I saw tons of security just popping up from individual tables, men with weapons and a lot of weaponry jumping up and then running toward members of the cabinet, obviously.
Escorting the president off the stage, which we were happy that he got safely off the stage.
So the Secret Service did do their job in getting all of the cabinet members and the vice president and the president off the stage.
But the thing I noticed, Pierce, that was so shocking is upon entering the Hilton, they didn't even inspect our tickets.
They just said, Do you have a ticket?
I opened up my purse and the back of my ticket was showing, which was just a blank card.
And that was good enough for them to nod me in.
I never had to show my passport or identification.
And right when you walked in the door was where the red carpet was.
That's where members of the cabinet were doing interviews and on the red carpet.
Literally, anybody off the street could have probably walked in very easily and had access to some very important members of the administration.
Well, and in a way, even worse, this guy had got a train from California to Washington and then just calmly booked himself into one of the Hilton hotel rooms where nobody had checked the fact that he was armed to the teeth.
He had two guns on him when he.
Made his attack, he had knives on him and so on.
And he was even able, in his twisted manifesto, as I referenced earlier, to openly taunt the Secret Service.
So much as I would give credit to the Secret Service for what they did once he made the attack in stopping him reaching the ballroom, the reality is he should never have been able to get as far as he did in the first place, armed in the way that he was.
And I just find it incredible that when you have a president as controversial as Donald Trump, and where it's obvious a lot of people hate him as much as like him, after two Attempts on his life.
One in Butler, Pennsylvania, where he got hit, and one on the golf course where I think it was miraculous that he didn't get killed that day either.
The fact that this guy was able just to calmly book himself into a room on the Friday, the day before, and no one's checking that he is a potential attacker with loads of weapons, I find that just incredible.
Well, I mean, they needed to have better security getting into the ballroom.
I mean, that metal detector was one floor up, but all that.
Shooter had to do was run down a flight of stairs, and right at the bottom of the stairs are the doors that open up to the ballroom.
I mean, it's astonishing and frightening how close he was able to get to a room full of people who are administration officials, including the most powerful person in the world, President Donald J. Trump.
So many things went wrong.
I don't know if it's the hotel's fault.
I don't know how the security was handled, but I'm just telling you that I was able to get in.
Nobody ever asked for an ID, no one ever inspected a ticket.
There was one.
Metal detector, and something's got to change.
And thank God the president is safe.
I, for one, and I feel like they can speak for the American people, I'm tired of the president being put in positions where people are trying to kill him.
And I think that the media has to take some of the blame.
There are 90% of the people in that ballroom, Pierce, are part of the mainstream media, and many of them despise the president and have pushed just hideous rhetoric over the past decade about President Trump.
Remember, You know, President Trump is a human being.
He's a man that everybody loved before he got into politics.
Confronting Lies and Truth00:15:07
You mentioned he's controversial and that people hate him.
Why do they hate him?
It's because of a steady stream of negative lies that have been told about the president over the course of a decade by the majority, if not all, of the mainstream media.
It's constant lies about this president.
They have poisoned the minds of the American people and, frankly, people around the world.
President Trump, when he was Donald Trump, Entered into politics, a successful businessman, a beloved member of the American society.
And the only reason people hate him, if they hate him now, is because of the lies that the mainstream media has sewn on this man.
And they have to look in the mirror and they have to take responsibility for that.
And I think we need to do a major overhaul of the media.
There's a huge responsibility when you are speaking into a microphone, looking into a camera, to be honest.
And they've stopped doing that.
I walked away from my career after 30 years.
I walked away from a seven figure contract.
Because I recognize, wow, they're forcing us to lie about things, lie about things like COVID, lie about vaccines.
Are forcing us to lie, and I'm not going to lie to the people, to the viewers that watch me.
And I think we need to do a massive overhaul of the media right now.
Wash out some of these people who just cannot, they cannot push their hatred of President Trump aside and be honest brokers.
What do you mean by wash out?
What would you want to see happen?
It's fire them.
Move on.
Thank you.
We're happy.
Thank you for your service.
You have shown and proved you cannot be an unbiased journalist.
Thank you for your service.
We're moving on and we're moving in a new direction.
And you have to look beyond just the faces that you're seeing on television and the voices.
You have to look at who's running the operation.
When I worked in television, you got to look at the producers and the writers.
We had a notorious producer at one of my previous jobs, radical, radical leftist.
And that's the person who's deciding what stories go into a newscast.
That's the person who oftentimes is writing.
And setting up the entire decision making process on what stories are going into the newscast.
So, we've got to make sure that we have diversity in thought, not 95% radical leftists in the newsroom, but people who have diversity when it comes to thoughts and ideas.
Some of them have a conservative ideology, some may have a more moderate ideology, and including some who maybe have a more liberal ideology.
But we cannot continue to run newsrooms where 90 to 95% of the people in the newsroom are radical leftists.
The interesting part of what you're saying is you actually had a direct confrontation with CNN's Jake Tapper, I understand.
You said, I walked out right next to Jake Tapper, this is at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and looked at me in the eye and I said, How dare you?
You've caused so much division in this country pushing lies.
We're not going to call it gaslighting anymore.
You've lied to the people.
How dare you do that?
Why did you single out Jake Tapper and how did you respond to this?
Well, I wouldn't call it a confrontation.
I mean, confrontation implies that you're, you know, almost picking a fight with somebody.
We're walking out together.
Remember, there were a lot of well known figures in that room.
I happened to be sitting at a table next to CNN, and before dinner started, I actually went over and I said, You guys need to up your game because you have put out the most ridiculous news.
You can't even call it news.
When I go to these events, just because I'm rubbing elbows with people in the media and people that others know that are.
Quote unquote famous.
I don't have to lie and act like I like them.
I think these people have acted in a despicable, unprofessional way.
And when we were evacuating the building, I looked over and happened to see that I was right next to Jake Tapper.
And as we were walking, I just said, You've been derelict in your duties.
You've lied to the people.
How do you live with yourself?
These people need to be called out.
Why would I walk out of here?
But, Carrie, here's what I would say.
Look, Jake's not here to defend himself.
I'm sure he will on his own show.
They would argue, with some justification, that there's been a lot of lying going on from the political classes, too.
They would say that President Trump is not always a guy who is 100% truthful in what he says, that many of the people in his cabinet or his supporters often tell whoppers and lies to suit them.
And that they are in a.
You can argue with the policy, Pierce.
You can argue with the policy, but the media has a duty to be fair.
And the media is calling him.
Right, I agree with that.
I agree with that, but do politicians have a duty to tell the truth?
If you want that from the media, and I agree with you, I think it's been one of the most truthful politicians that we've ever had.
Well, hang on, let me finish my point.
I do think they've been biased collectively against Trump.
There's no question of that.
But I also think that it's incumbent on both sides, isn't it, to strive to always tell the truth.
Would you agree with that?
The media has been so, they've failed so miserably in that.
I mean, last night on 60 Minutes, Nora O'Connell starts reading from this deranged, violent, deranged lunatic's manifesto.
She's reading the manifesto to the president, asking the president if he's a monster, if he's a pedophile.
Well, let's watch that clip, actually.
That was one of the lowest forms of journalism I've ever seen.
60 Minutes is now allowed.
Let's watch that clip because I have a view about that as well.
Let's watch the clip.
The so called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President.
He appears to reference a motive in it.
He writes this Administration officials, they are targets.
And he also wrote this.
I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.
What's your reaction to that?
Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you're horrible people.
Horrible people.
Yeah, he did write that.
I'm not a rapist.
I didn't rape anybody.
But oh, you think he was referring to you?
Excuse me.
I'm not a pedophile.
You read that crap from some sick person.
Now, I thought that was incredibly disingenuous by Nora O'Donnell for two reasons.
Of course, she was inferring that this had been said about President Trump.
She knew that.
He knew that.
And it was just a ridiculous game she was playing to try and feign innocence.
Oh, you think he was talking about you?
But secondly, I was trying to think if that had been Obama or Biden or any of the Democrat presidents in particular, would she have read out these incredibly defamatory comments?
And the truth is, I don't think she would have done.
So there is one rule for Trump in their eyes and one for everybody else.
So on that, I'm with you completely.
They didn't even have access to Obama.
Obama barely ever did an interview with these people.
And when they did have a chance to ask him questions, and they asked questions of Joe Biden, what's your favorite ice cream flavor?
I mean, this is, Pierce, there's no sugarcoating it.
The mainstream media is completely shot.
It's terrible.
There's no recovering with these same cast of characters.
They got to recover.
Right, but you haven't actually answered.
Okay, but Carrie, you haven't actually answered my question, which is does the same rule apply to.
To the political class.
Is it incumbent on you and President Trump and every member of the cabinet to also always tell the truth?
You have an answer?
Well, naturally, I think people, Pierce, of course, I think people should tell the truth, and I think the president does.
But the media is covering the president.
The media has never covered a president the way they covered President Trump.
They have tried to destroy this man's reputation.
He's an incredible human being.
He's fighting for our country.
He didn't need any of this.
And they have covered him in a way that is so disrespectful and so hurtful to the American people.
It's tearing apart the American people, the work that the media has done.
And I'm not going to give them one inch here.
These people, many of them, are absolutely despicable human beings for the way they've handled their profession.
They've destroyed the profession of journalism.
And hopefully we can move some of these folks out and bring a fresh crop in because we need people who actually understand what fairness is.
And I don't believe Nora O'Connell has the ability to be a fair human being after that interview.
What did you make of.
What did you make of President Obama's post on X, which has been widely criticized?
Didn't mention Trump by name.
And it started, although we don't yet have the details about the motives behind last night's shooting at the White House Correspondence Dinner, it's incumbent upon all of us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy.
It's also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that U.S. Secret Service agents show every day.
I'm grateful to them and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay.
Again, noticeable that he didn't mention President Trump by name and also that he claimed not to have any information about potential motive when, in fact, several hours before he posted that, We'd had all the contents of this twisted manifesto, which made it pretty clear what his motivation was.
Well, I'm not going to get into what Obama was thinking.
It's pretty sad that he couldn't at least put a word, a line in there that he's thankful that President Trump is safe.
But I don't think he is.
I think a lot of people in that room, sadly, it's a room full of twisted so called journalists who are radical.
And I think some of them may have been rooting for.
The assailant in this case.
That's how sick they are.
And they have to take the blame for getting that guy in that guy's mind.
I mean, the media has, when you're watching a steady stream of people calling the president the most heinous names ever, calling him a dictator, calling him a Hitler, when that is going on day after day after day after day, it's almost like an emotional mental abuse that's inflicted on the American people.
And some people who are weak minded are going to succumb to that, that kind of rhetoric.
And they're going to act out.
And that's exactly what we saw transpire, both in the case at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and in the past with the other attempts on the president's life.
I wish the media would take some responsibility for it and bring down the temperature about 1,000 degrees.
Carrie Lake, thank you very much indeed for rejoining me on Uncensored.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Well, let's hear now from my panel Jack Posobit, the senior editor at Human Events, Joanne Carducci, the commentator known as Jojo from Jersey, Mark Lamont Hill.
Host of Bet News and former law enforcement, better known as the Officer Tatum, Brandon Tatum.
Well, welcome to all of you.
As we are about to debate this, Melania Trump has now responded to something that Jimmy Kimmel said on Thursday night about the White House correspondence dinner.
So before it happened, Kimmel's quip, if you can put it like that, although I thought it was singularly humorless in the moment and even more so now, was Our First Lady is here.
Mrs. Trump, you have the glow like an expectant widow.
Now, Melania Trump has now responded.
Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him.
She's written on X. Enough is enough.
It's time for ABC to take a stand.
Now, Kimmel did this, a sort of spoofed cutaways of Melania, the president, and the cabinet, while telling jokes he would have told if he'd been at the White House correspondence dinner, including the joke about Stephen Miller saying that Miller was baby Hitler, traveled in time to kill the US.
Let me start with you, Brandon Tatum.
Melania is getting more and more outspoken at the moment.
She's clearly enraged by what Jimmy Kimmel said here, which, in the context of what then happened at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, you can understand her rage to describe her as having the glow of an expectant widow when someone has launched an assassination attempt seems particularly tasteless.
What's your view of it?
Pierce, this is absolutely ridiculous.
I mean, these people are crazy and deranged.
They push this stuff every day on television.
And their articles, and you wonder why people are out here trying to kill President Donald Trump.
I put my life on it that he would never say that about any other president, or his career would be over.
Imagine him saying it about Michelle Obama, that she's looking like an expected widow.
That's the most deranged thing that I ever heard in my life.
And it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat.
It's distasteful and it's inappropriate to say and it's disrespectful to the country.
And I don't like Democrats not one bit.
But if anybody were to say that, I don't care if you're Republican or not, against a Democrat president, you are wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Yeah, I mean, let me go to JoJo here.
I mean, I don't care what side of the divide you're on, who you vote for, whatever.
I think Brandon Tatum's completely accurate when he says that simply would not have been anything that any late night comedian would have even dared to say about Michelle Obama.
And there does seem to be just no rules when it comes to how the mainstream media talk about Trump.
Now, they may well argue, well, he trashes us, all's fair in love and war.
But actually, that's not the, in my view, the acceptable response.
They should show more responsibility when they're talking about things like this.
What's your view?
You know, first of all, is that I absolutely abhor political violence, violence of any kind.
I want to make that abundantly clear.
But Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian.
Donald Trump is a public official.
If we're going to have this conversation, which I think we should have this conversation, it should begin with Donald Trump.
With Donald Trump, I printed out, just to take a page out of his book, just some of the violent rhetoric that has come from him over the course of the last decade stand back and stand by.
Can't you just shoot them?
Just shoot them in the legs.
He told the January 6th insurrectionists, We love you.
You're very special.
You've seen what happens.
We have a different vice president now, Piers, because Mike Pence, which I have that, Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution.
That mob wanted to hang Mike Pence in part because of Donald Trump's rhetoric, which he then doubled down on later and said they were right to have him hanged.
Donald Trump has been one of the most divisive political figures, public figures in.
Global politics, at least in the course of my lifetime.
Protected Speech and Violence00:04:19
And I think you're right.
I think that this deserves a conversation, the way we talk to each other, but it has to start with him.
And again, Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian.
We've been doing the White House Correspondents Association centers forever.
They've always mocked the president.
We've had people roasting everybody.
What is funny?
Okay, all right, all right.
But JoJo, explain to me what is funny, remotely funny, about saying that Melania Trump has the glow of an expectant widow, given there have already been two unsuccessful assassination attempts.
On Trump before this comment was made, and there's been another one afterwards.
What is funny about it?
Explain to me.
I mean, I didn't say it, first of all, and I didn't actually laugh at that joke.
I laughed at the Stephen Miller joke because that is funny.
I laugh.
And much of that was funny because he's a comedian.
And again, this is what we do, and this is protected speech.
Do we have a First Amendment in this country?
You don't have to like what he says.
You don't have to find it funny.
That's your right.
It's also her right not to watch his show.
This is protected speech in this country.
And the fact that she's using her position of power and the leverage that she has as a As the first lady to threaten a private citizen's job because he said something she didn't like, I think that is a bridge too far.
I'm really worried about this slippery slope.
I think she has every right to stand up for herself, to speak out for herself, to say she doesn't like what somebody said, but to tell ABC that they need to fire him again, I think that she needs to focus more on cooling the temperature down from within the White House itself.
Just walk across the hall to your melon hued meal ticket, knock on the door, and ask him to turn down the temperature himself.
All right, Japasobic.
The problem here is if you look at this twisted manifesto of this latest shooter, Cole Allen, described by people who knew him as a near genius, he was a teacher who'd recently won awards, everyone seemed to like him and so on.
He wasn't a natural red flag person where you'd look at him and think, well, he's got criminal convictions and history of violence or any of that.
None of that appeared to be there.
Seems to have been a brilliant mind, poisoned, it would appear, by propaganda from the left.
I mean, a lot of the language used in his manifesto.
Is the language of the hard left against Trump.
And there's no denying that.
I mean, I'm not going to say that only the left commit acts of violence.
They don't.
The right has done just as much, actually, in the last 30 years.
But I do think on this occasion, there's no doubt this supposedly brilliant mind had had that mind warped by whatever he was hearing about Trump, including Hitler references and so on.
And I've warned for a while that if you continually say that Trump is Hitler or Stephen Miller is Hitler or whoever it is, then To a deranged mind, eventually they're going to think they're doing a public service and a duty by killing the new Hitler.
Why wouldn't they?
So, I do think language really matters.
So, what do you say to people like Jojo who think that the comments of Kimmel about Melania Trump having the glow of an expectant widow, they're just a comedian, being a comedian?
Look, Pierce, we've been through a spate in the last couple of years of leftist political violence, the likes of which this country has never seen, the United States has never seen.
We've seen a murder of Charlie Kirk by a leftist.
We've seen Luigi Maggioni.
We've seen Thomas Matthew Crookes, by the way.
If you put all of those together and look at their academic achievements as well, you can also see that they were very high achievers in their high schools, high on the ACTs, high on the SATs, these college entrance exams, top 1%, top 99th percentile.
There's actually a lot of commonalities that we see between the profile of those individuals and this Cole Allen.
And yes, ultimately, What you see in this manifesto, one thing I tweeted earlier was that it, what's striking to me is that you don't see any signs of derangement or schizophrenia or any of these things.
You just see the exact same type of rhetoric that you would get from watching Jimmy Kimmel and listening to the things that he says and then going out and deciding to take what in his mind is the next logical step to assassinate the president of the United States, which, by the way, not only did, you know, you have the entire, almost the entire head of the government there, and obviously your interview with Kerry, I think that was.
Connecting Profiles to Attacks00:15:16
Uh, quite spot on about security, but also the idea that you had friends there, just personal friends who were sitting in this room.
You had people on the left, you had people on the right.
This is a threat to everyone, okay?
This is a threat to everyone, and it all needs to stop.
It just needs to stop.
Martin Lamont Hill, the most staggering thing to me.
Well, one second, Judge, I'll come back to you.
But Martin Lamont Hill, one thing that immediately began to happen were an extraordinary number of people on social media immediately saying, This was fake.
It was a false flag operation.
It was staged.
People just repeating the word stage, I think Jojo alluded to this in some of her social media posts.
I mean, surely you don't think that anything that happened at the White House Correspondents' Dinner was set up or staged, do you?
That's an interesting question.
I don't think that it was staged, but I said, I don't think it was staged.
You really that outraged by that?
You don't agree?
You think it was the interesting part of the question?
Surely the only answer to the question.
I said, I don't think it was.
I just said, I don't think it was staged.
That's the only sentence I said.
Why are you all responding as if I said the opposite?
My only sentence was to say that's an interesting question.
Your first response is interesting.
It's an interesting question.
Because it is an interesting question.
I'm complimenting you on the question.
You're the one that asked it.
If you don't think it's interesting, why would you ask it?
I think you all were prepared for me to say one thing and I didn't, and so you're jumping as if I said something different.
Everyone up here thinks it was not staged.
I, Mark Lamon Hill, agree with you all that it was not staged.
Now, allow me to continue.
I understand that the American people, many people in the American public, and really around the world, have a penchant for conspiracy theories.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, so it would take a lot for me to get to that point.
I do understand, after three assassination attempts, why many people would question the security.
They would question how this shooter was able to get.
Get such great access.
President Trump hasn't participated in a White House correspondence dinner in a long time.
You knew he was going to show up, and to Carrie Lake's point, you know a lot of people in the media don't like him.
You know a lot of people in the public don't like him.
There's a reason why, if this isn't staged, why three people tried to shoot him.
So if you know that, you would expect the response to be different from security.
So I think the reason why many people, which is why I think it's interesting, why many people are skeptical of this is not as unfounded as faking the moon landing, which is absurd, or saying the earth is flat, which is absurd.
I think it's because of the lack of security and the consistency with which one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, at least one of the most polarizing presidents in recent memory, continues to get shot at with not enough security.
I think that's why people are asking it.
Okay, JoJo, for the record, do you believe any of that was staged on Saturday?
I don't think anything was staged.
I think we should ask questions.
I think that we should ask questions in every one of these cases.
I think that that's a reasonable, rational position to take.
Unfortunately, the commentary really here is why is it that so many people, not just in this country, but around the world, are saying things like it's staged?
I think that that's something that we should be considering.
What is it about this person, about this administration, about these breaches in security, about these unanswered questions, of which we have many?
I am also not a conspiracy theorist, but we have a lot of unanswered questions, not just about what happened the other day.
And also, by the way, Jack, to your point, I was in DC and I had friends there as well.
I was at the Substack. Party at the very same time we went on lockdown.
It felt very real and very scary.
But I think we should have a conversation about the questions that we have about all of this stuff.
I mean, we still don't know that we didn't get a statement from the actual doctor in Butler.
We have a lot of outstanding questions related to the shooter in Butler.
We have outstanding questions to Charlie Kirk's shooter.
These are questions we should ask.
Unfortunately, it's really kind of, again, a real commentary on where we are as a country and as a world right now.
That we can't necessarily trust at face value what this administration is telling us, and particularly as it pertains to Donald Trump's health and safety.
Yes.
And I think that it would be incumbent upon all of us to ask these questions.
Also, Jack, I'm sorry, but to draw the line between Jimmy Kimmel's comedic routine and the natural progression, which is what you said the logical progression of listening to a comedian and then traveling across the country with firearms to murder members of Donald Trump's cabinet it is absolutely, on its face, insane.
Let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question.
The right to free speech all the time.
I just want to finish this.
Let me ask you a question to respond.
So, do you think you can?
You finished your point.
Do you remember in 2024 when you called for Joe Biden to nullify the 2024 election?
What are you talking about?
We're talking about the shooting right now.
Do you remember in 2024 when you called for Joe Biden to nullify the results of the election?
What you're trying to do is, you said that you're trying to change the subject.
I'm not, I'm not, I'm not actually.
Do you remember that?
Yes or no?
We're not, we're not, why do you always bring up Joe Biden?
You're like a broken record.
Joe Biden, Joe Biden, Joe Biden.
Who's the president now?
Why do you always come on here and talk about Joe Biden?
And I'm not bringing this up.
I'm not bringing this up for now.
Did my comments incite someone to go with a firearm across the country and try to kill people and allegedly try to retweet Trump's cabinet?
Because the killer shared your post calling to nullify the result of the 2024 election.
I have it right here on.
You were telling him.
So she's responsible.
First of all, I didn't know that.
So are you trying to attribute what happened?
Are you trying to nullify the result of the 2024 election?
Be very fucking careful right now, Alex.
Are you trying to insinuate?
Excuse me.
If you are trying to draw a line between me and what happened in Washington, what you just said is extremely irrational.
So what?
So what?
Okay, how many times did you retreat?
How many times did you retreat?
How many times have you retweeted something that Donald Trump said?
Okay, don't talk over each other.
He decided to know what was already going on, just like you asked him to do.
That was a hefty accusation that he just lobbied at me.
I have no accusation.
I have it right here.
That has nothing to do with me, Jack.
You're trying to tie me to someone who allegedly tried to kill.
Excuse me.
So you're telling.
What's alleged about it?
What's alleged?
It's not.
Case is not closed, it hasn't gone to trial.
You have to say, alleged, what do you, what else?
Oh, you are a judge and jury?
Are you a judge and jury?
Are you, are you really?
We have evidence, we have his own family, we have him on video, we have eyewitnesses that I've spoken to.
We live in a country of law and order, Jack.
We have, we have to say, alleged, just like we have to say, Donald Trump allegedly raped a 13 year old girl, just like we have to say, Donald Trump was allegedly introduced.
This is what they do, they don't accept the evidence, they don't accept the actions of their own.
Country of law and order or not.
Okay, please don't.
All right, listen.
All right, all right.
Please don't talk over each other because I can tell you.
Hang on.
I can just tell you if you all talk over each other, nobody at home can hear.
Let me bring in Brandon.
He's been waiting, I have to say, respectfully, patiently, and silently.
Brandon, it seems to me a stain on everyone's houses.
There's been increasingly incendiary rhetoric in American political discourse now for many years from the left and the right.
You know, everyone is culpable in this area, I think.
I think it's disingenuous of people.
On the right to say it's just the crazy lefties.
I think it's disingenuous for people on the left to deny they're doing it and then to pretend that none of their side do it.
Everyone's been doing this.
The rhetoric's got increasingly unpleasant, nasty, violent, fractious, divisive, polarizing.
And inevitably, in a country with over 400 million weapons, firearms, you're going to get unhinged people who take it in their own hands to exact their warped form of justice.
Which is, they think, oh, well, this guy's the new Hitler.
I've got to try and kill him.
They're all Hitler.
They're all Nazis.
We've got to kill them.
You know, I understand the warp mindset.
If you keep being told someone's Hitler, then eventually you're going to take out Hitler as a public service.
Yeah, I agree with you on that point.
I'll push back on another point, but I do think people need to slow down this rhetoric.
Saying all this inflammatory stuff online is just nonsensical.
You know, I criticize Trump for saying crazy stuff every now and again.
I don't think you should do it, I think it's a waste of time.
Going after private citizens, you know, you're above that as the president, in my personal opinion.
Do I think that's a direct correlation to somebody trying to kill them?
I think the most correlation or the connectivity of that is the mainstream media saying he's Hitler every day.
And these nutjobs acting like the dude is doing something he's not doing.
I mean, said he was a racist today, ran out of oxygen saying that.
Then they're comparing to Hitler.
Then they said he's a king, he's a dictator.
I mean, these are the most deranged things that you could say about anybody.
And of course, these nutjobs are going to try to posture up and want to kill him.
And I don't know why we can't acknowledge that.
I can say on one side, I want.
Trump and Republicans to slow down on what they're doing, but the mainstream media have a higher responsibility because they're out putting information out 24 7, seven days a week, and it's all inflammatory against President Donald Trump and is wrong.
Didn't JD Vance have a problem with that?
Okay, let me bring in.
All right, let me bring in Mark Lamont Hill here.
Mark Lamont Hill, there was a part of the interview with 60 Minutes last night where Donald Trump was told that this shooter had been part of a No Kings event, and he, Trump, linked it to the A scandal involving the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Let's take a look.
I see these no kings, which are funded just like the Southern Law was funded.
You saw all that.
Southern Law is financing the KKK and lots of other radical, terrible groups.
And then they go out and they say, oh, we've got to stop the KKK.
And yet they give them hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars.
They were not.
It's a total scam run by the Democrats.
Now, he's referring, of course, to the Southern Poverty Law Centre and this revelation that they paid out millions of pounds to what they claim were informants within these very dangerous and violent groups.
First of all, on that scandal, do you believe there's validity to the way that the right are treating this story that it's outrageous, unacceptable, it should have been transparent, and so on?
Or do you accept, I guess, what the argument would be the same argument in its defense that people might use about the FBI who pay?
Informants in gangs and so on and so on, or in the mafia, whatever it may be.
Do you see that as the same thing, or do you see it as problematic?
I'm not going to pick either or between those options.
I think we have to have a more sophisticated answer.
I think there should be transparency.
I agree with the right that there should be transparency.
For example, the SPLC should be saying, hey, we pay informants, right?
No one is surprised when the FBI pays a mob informant because we know.
So, as long as the transparency is there, I don't have an issue with it.
Similarly, though, I'm not going to reject the Southern Poverty Law Center's claim that their money goes to informants within the KKK.
I don't think they're funding the KKK.
I think they're funding informants as a way of dismantling the KKK.
Now, we can have debates about whether that's the best strategy or not, but I do accept that as a legitimate strategy, even if I don't think it's the best strategy.
Again, we should talk through that.
Right now, what we need is more transparency, we need a deeper investigation from an outside body.
To make sure that that is in fact the case.
But I don't accept this right wing narrative that they're funding the KKK.
Also, just in response quickly to the other things that were said, first to the Jimmy Kimmel point, I was one of the people that thought the joke was funny.
I like dark humor.
If that joke had been made after the shooting, I think it would be unacceptable.
I think it would be in bad taste, and I would understand why Melania Trump would be calling for Jimmy Kimmel's head.
Oh, after the shooting.
But Mark, it is after the shooting.
How many more shootings do you have?
No, no, it's after two other shootings.
It's after a shooting on his life.
How many more dead can you have?
He almost got killed.
Okay.
Actually, if you press the button, I'm going to talk about violence.
Can we just hold on, please?
I respectfully listen to everyone, and every time I've spoken, I've been interrupted.
I just want to make the point, and then you all can respond, and we can have a conversation.
My point is the premise of the joke with Melania Trump is that she doesn't like him, and that he is old, and that he is dying.
If that joke had been made to Jill Biden, I would be laughing.
Why?
Because Joe Biden was old.
He was a president.
He shouldn't have been in office.
He was dying.
He was weekend at Bernie's.
We all have the jokes, right?
How many times was Joe Biden called weekend at Bernie's?
It was funny because of the premise.
That is why I like the joke.
I'm not telling you all you have to like the joke.
I'm just saying that I understand the logic of the joke.
The joke wasn't to invite murder.
That's all I'm saying.
And if we want a country that values free speech, we have to hold space for that.
As far as the climate here, yes, we do live in a climate that is volatile and where we say things that lead to action.
But every time we criticize Donald Trump for excessive executive orders, and yes, Democrats did it too, every time we criticize Trump for moving without congressional approval, every time we move Trump for fighting unjust wars or prosecuting unjust wars, yes, he's moving like a monarch.
And yes, we're going to have marches.
Yes, we're going to have criticisms.
Yes, we're going to have takes that call him a king.
And yes, when he wants to commit or not commit, but aid and fund genocides in other countries, yes, we have a right to compare him to despotic leaders throughout history.
I don't use the Hitler comparison.
I don't.
But there are comparisons that can be made.
And when something awful happens, instead of saying maybe people want to kill him because he keeps doing, he keeps killing people, we say maybe people want to kill him because people call him a killer.
That's, to me, that is the most ridiculous he who smelt the delta logic I've ever heard.
Let me just say this, Mark.
Mark, Mark and my heel, the reason that I jumped in there because you said this would be distasteful if it happened after a shooting.
Well, they did shoot him, and Donald Trump almost got killed before.
And then it was two other assassination attempts.
And so when you have assassination attempts that have already occurred, one in which he almost got killed, and somebody jokes about him getting killed, and the interesting thing is a guy tried to kill him the same night.
Don't you see the parallel?
Don't you see how this is problematic that this guy came to kill Trump right after Kimball made the joke?
It's because there's a logic there.
Clarifying Political Jokes00:14:23
There's people reiterating and talking about this.
It wasn't enough time for Kimmel's joke to transfer to this guy's head to make him kill him that night.
Exactly.
But this is an ongoing scenario where people are continuing to flood the internet with this ideology that's unacceptable.
I don't know how you can't get that.
Can I tell it first?
Do you mind if I respond to that?
Because this is a real question.
I think if he asked me a question, I apologize.
You asked the question.
So, yes, again, I'll be real fast.
I agree with you that the language and the rhetoric matters.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
And I didn't say that Trump hadn't been there was an attempt at Trump's killing before.
I was simply saying if Kimball had done this right after this shooting, it would be in poor taste.
Yes, the shooting happened months ago, and another shooting happened a year or so ago.
I'm with you.
I'm with you.
I don't like any of the violent language, but it's an off color joke that I don't think leads to the violence.
When you look at the guy's manifesto, when you read why he was outraged, I don't think he's being motivated by political comedians.
I think he's being motivated by the political climate.
And if we're going to talk about that, then we have to talk about the language that all of us use Democrats and Republicans, the language we use to talk about Palestinians, the language we use to talk about shithole countries in Africa, the language we use to talk about low IQ politicians.
All of it can lead to violence.
And guess what?
It's not just happening from Democrats, it's happening from everybody.
So let's calm it all down, but let's not pretend every time we criticize Trump, we're enabling killers.
Okay.
Okay.
I digress.
Yeah, so I just wanted to say a couple of things.
Donald Trump has pardoned andor commuted the sentences of 1,600 plus.
People who attacked our Capitol on January 6th.
They're looking to vacate the criminal convictions of the people who coordinated that attack.
But as a personal anecdotal story here, Donald Trump made jokes about Paul Pelosi's attack.
Donald Trump has repeatedly made jokes about Paul Pelosi's attack.
I'm a mom of two.
I'm a single mom of two.
About a couple of months after Paul Pelosi's attack, in conjunction with one of Donald Trump's jokes, I got a series of text messages with pictures of my home.
And then, in short order, I got a phone call from someone who sounded like they were in the car and said to me, We know your home.
We know your kids are home.
We are going to Paul Pelosi you next.
That was on the heels of a joke that Donald Trump.
Had made about Paul Pelosi.
So please spare me this performative pearl clutching about how it is only people on the left when no one on that side is willing to hold him accountable for jokes like that, for rhetoric like that.
I experienced that personally.
I had to call my own police department.
I had to call the FBI.
I had to live in perpetual and still do perpetual fear of violence against myself and my children.
And Donald Trump.
Owns that.
So to pretend that he is above the fray here and that this is the Jimmy Kimmels of the world and it's not landing squarely at his feet, then I'm sorry, but that just doesn't pass the smell test.
There's a difference between the two.
Hang on.
Hang on.
Yeah, Jack, you go on.
No, I was just saying that I feel horrible for that.
My family's been swatted as well.
And the point that we're making is that you should be able then to call for a tone down of the rhetoric.
On all sides.
That's why we're not giving Jimmy Kimmel a pass.
Well, you just did give Jimmy Kimmel a pass, and you didn't even condemn the killer himself when I pointed out that he was retweeting you.
You're doing a sketch ahead of an event, an event that is notorious for public criticism of the person who is in the executive branch.
We're talking about two different things.
Jimmy Kimmel didn't advocate for somebody to kill Donald Trump.
Donald Trump made jokes about Paul Pelosi being hit in the head with a hammer.
How are these things?
You're drawing a false equivalency.
Why can't you say that Donald Trump was wrong?
Can you trust me?
No, no, can you?
You're saying Jimmy Kimmel is not wrong, but you're saying Donald Trump made a joke.
Exactly.
You said that as a joke, right?
He's the president of the United States of America.
He's not a comedian on ABC.
But do you accept that as a joke?
Was Donald Trump right when he said that Mike Pence should have been hanged?
Was Donald Trump right in commuting the sentences of the 1,600 people who had an involvement in an attack on our Capitol?
Was Donald Trump right specifically when he said that?
Why don't we agree this?
Okay, time out.
Why don't we all try it?
Hang on, please.
Why don't we all try and agree this?
Why don't we all agree that when acts of violence or attacks on politicians in particular occur, the first reaction is not to claim because it's the other side, it must be staged.
And, Brandon, I have to say, you know, when Ilya Omar was sprayed at a recent event with an unknown substance, you said this.
Let's take a look.
The bottom line is that I'm looking at this impartially.
I don't know what anybody said.
I saw the video, and it does not look consistent.
With someone trying to assault another person, which means I have never in my life seen a person get up, spray something out of syringe at someone's chest.
It happened to be nothing inert.
And then she comes after him.
You didn't see her back away from him.
You didn't see her shy away from him.
You didn't see any of that.
And God didn't even resist.
Brandon, you would say, Brandon, you would say the complete opposite if that was a Republican conversation.
And that's not true.
So that debate we had then, Brandon, I do think.
Officer Dale, wait, I think I did.
Officer Dale.
Hang on, hang on.
Let me handle this, please.
Brandon, the point I would make is, as I said then, it was the other way around, you would say the opposite, and you have.
But this happens from everybody.
I get loads of people.
No, no, no.
Pierce, Pierce, let's talk about it.
Where have you seen me say anything to the contrary about a Republican or not?
You never heard it.
There is a clearly it was fake.
Do we not know that that was fake?
He did not squeeze any type of chemical agent on her.
Did he or did he not?
It was fake.
I knew it was fake when I saw it.
What do you mean?
You said, when did I know?
Because you can see that it's fake.
Listen, I did.
Listen, I have done investigations.
Let me explain.
I'll let you talk, young lady.
Hold on a second.
I have done investigations so many times in my career.
I've investigated violent crimes.
I've looked at surveillance videos.
And I've done this media stuff for a very long time.
When I watch her mannerisms and behavior, I can tell that it's inconsistent with somebody that's being sprayed by a chemical agent, which she doesn't know if it's.
It's dangerous or not.
No one would get sprayed by something and then try to attack the attacker.
But here's my point.
What do we find out, Pierce?
What do we find out?
I was correct.
I was correct.
Brandon, here's my point.
Here's my point.
We didn't find that out.
Your natural reality is that he admitted that it was not industrial.
It was like a chocolate.
Find out if you agree what it was.
You're applying to the audience that it was proven that it was staged.
No, it was proven that there was no chemical in there.
It was not a staged event.
You may believe that.
But there's no evidence that it was a fusion of common sense.
Use your common sense.
Why would a guy stand up and commit a felony to put sugar water on somebody?
Because people are walking up the hill.
I've been.
I've been attacked.
I've been attacked.
Walk up the hill.
I'm answering you.
I'm answering you.
I have been attacked at events with people who had powder substances.
The powder turned out not to be a chemical.
I can assure you, I didn't stage it.
Sometimes people who are not well do things.
Sometimes people do things to intimidate you.
Sometimes people do things to create a distraction.
As you know, as a security person, Or, as a law enforcement officer who has done security, I'm telling you that just because someone doesn't have a chemical agent with them doesn't mean that the person who was the victim staged.
That's all I'm saying.
And it does not, you don't have any evidence that it wasn't staged.
I'm giving my perspective based on, hold on, let me finish.
I'm giving my perspective based on what I saw.
You said it was proven.
I didn't just make up.
Right, but you said it was proven.
I said it was proven that it was staged.
I said it was proven that it was.
When it happened to her.
If it was another scenario, because I don't give a flying flip if it's a Republican or a Democrat, if the scenario looked fake, it looked fake.
What are we talking about?
A lot of people pick up on that.
Let me say something.
What we're talking about is that in the moment, Ilya Omar did not know it was fake.
Clearly, it was a scary incident involving a person.
How do you know that Ilhan Omar, they have not concluded the investigation into what did Ilhan Omar do?
So there you go.
So you're basically saying it's staged.
Here's my point, Brandon.
I'm just saying that's what I believe it is.
Here's my point.
Here's my point.
We've all got to move away.
Here's my point.
We've got to move past a stage where we view every attack on a politician as just one's most likely.
No one believes every attack on a politician.
I didn't think Pelosi was staged.
I didn't think the Pelosi attack was staged.
If it looks like it's staged, then I'm going to say this is what it looked like.
And I gave an articulable reason why her behavior, her mannerisms, the fact that he thinks she's staged.
All right, but you wouldn't have done that.
You wouldn't have done that if I hadn't done it.
Where's your evidence, Pierce?
Where's your evidence that I would have never done it?
Show me an example.
I trust the same gut instinct that you trust yourself.
You don't have any evidence, though.
You don't have any evidence to say that I would not hold people accountable if they were Republicans and they faked something.
I just think we should agree.
We should agree.
I think we should agree.
What?
I think we should agree.
I think we should agree.
Let me make my point.
We should agree.
We should agree collectively that we are no longer going to view attacks on politicians if it's someone from the other side, right?
People are no longer going to take an immediate position.
Oh, it must be faked.
It must be staged.
And secondly, the jokes about.
Wait a minute, Brandon.
And jokes about political violence or about Trump being dead and his wife being a glowing widow, whatever, given there have been two attempts in his life before that joke was made, should be ruled actually unacceptable.
That actually it's not funny, nothing that encourages the idea of dead politicians.
I was out the other night at the Time 100 gala and I sat with Senator Mark Kelly and with Gabby Giffords.
And I remember when Gabby Giffords got shot and very nearly killed.
And it was a reminder to me that political violence, whatever side you're on, is completely unacceptable.
Unacceptable and rhetoric about political violence should be completely unacceptable, and I've seen it on both sides.
And I also think calling out calling out attacks and incidents involving politicians where you take a view, because it's not your, your side, I think, is wrong your statement.
Your statement suggests that what Jimmy Kimmel did with Piers, what your statement suggests, that what Jimmy Kimmel did was make a joke about political violence.
I understand that some of you are making the connection between the two.
Jimmy Kimmel wasn't joking that he was that that that Donald Trump would be assassinated.
The joke once again is that he's old and she wants him to die.
I get the other things that you're saying.
I just want to be clear for the audience.
The millions of people.
Well, that's actually the joke.
I actually disagree with you on that because he made a baby hell of a joke.
Well, actually, if you want to be a little bit.
No, but hear me out.
But my plan is, Jimmy.
We can interpret the joke differently, but he didn't make a joke about political violence.
To be clear, Mark.
Mark, last time.
Okay, Mark, one question.
Have you spoken to Jimmy Kimmel?
Do you know that's what he meant?
No, I'm telling you how I interpreted the joke.
I'm saying the joke did not include any commentary about political violence.
We're all interpreting the joke, but it would be in any way an accurate journalist to suggest that the joke.
You are assuming.
As are you.
As are you.
Yeah.
Piers, Piers.
You're assuming that you're going to be slammed for a defense against Donald Trump.
I can tell you.
Piers, you're moving the goalpost.
No.
I'm going to say to you.
No, no, you are.
I'm going to say to you.
Hang on.
Hang on.
You're misrepresenting.
Wait a minute.
Shut up.
Shut up.
If Greg Gutfeld.
You don't have to tell me to shut up.
You can just.
I'll wait.
There's a time delay, okay?
Relax.
Just stop shouting.
All right, fine.
I've told you to stop talking and you refused, right?
I'm still the moderator of this show.
There's a time delay, Pierce.
I'm not interrupting you.
There's a time delay.
Okay, you are hearing me repeatedly say, please stop talking.
Correct?
If Greg Gutfeld had said the same joke about, say, The Bidens, I don't think you'd have raced to defend the comedian in the way that you're racing to defend Jimmy Kimmel.
I don't think any of it is acceptable.
Stop joking about politicians dying or being killed.
Stop questioning and querying that they're staged when they're obviously not.
And stop glorifying in rhetoric political violence at all.
I think they would be three really good starting places for how you try to move on from what happened in the 60s.
Let me ask a question.
Let me respond now.
Matt, Matt, now respond to yours.
Okay, then I want to talk about God first.
When I say you moved the goalpost, my point wasn't that my interpretation of the joke was right and your interpretation of the joke was wrong.
What I'm saying is, as a matter of fact, the joke did not include a reference to political violence.
You're saying that that's how you took it.
I'm saying I didn't take it that way.
I'm okay with either interpretation, but I was simply correcting you as a matter of fact that the joke didn't include political violence.
Number two, I worked on Red Eye at Fox News.
No, no, no.
I worked on Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld for years on Fox News, and we made numerous jokes about Obama, some of which included jokes about the first black president being shot.
So again, you are objectively wrong.
So I'm going to ask you now that I have corrected the record and shown you that I've worked with Greg Gutfeld on Red Eye at Fox News, News and that we made jokes about Obama dying that were made by me.
Can you at least acknowledge that you're wrong?
Uh, yes, thank you, thank you.
Also said, protesters should not have their names.
Internet Era Assassination Attempts00:06:29
And on that bombshell, we have sadly run out of time.
I appreciate the panel and the passion.
High, I just think we all have to kill it.
Shut up.
Well, that's fair enough, too.
We have to collectively work to lower the temperature.
So, shut up.
Guys, I appreciate it.
Thank you all very much.
Well, joining me now, security commentator, aka America's bodyguard, Bill Stanton.
Bill Stanton, thank you for joining me on Uncensor.
Was this a massive security failure in the sense of this shooter being able to calmly book into the Hilton the day before and not be checked and have all these weapons and carry out his attack?
Well, I'm going to give you a double answer.
I'm going to say yes and no, Piers.
Thanks for having me, by the way.
I'm going to say it was a failure in so much that he got that close, and it was a success in so much that he was stopped.
There's a lot of holes in the security plan as I see it.
And what, for you, from your perspective, what are the biggest holes?
Well, it's done in a public venue.
My understanding is that it was open to the public, the rest of the hotel.
This mental moron probably got his battle plan from playing video games and studying on the internet.
If they had a tier one assaulter going to do the job, that person or persons probably would have got a lot further and possibly would have achieved their demented goal.
What should happen now?
We've got the king of my country arriving with the queen in Washington today.
A lot of concern about the security arrangements for the various functions, the state visit.
Includes a White House dinner tonight, then he got the King appearing at Congress and so on.
You know, God forbid anything should happen during this four day trip, but what should we be doing about these kind of incidents?
They seem to be happening thick and fast, particularly with President Trump.
Well, I've done personal security executive protection.
I've also been part of event security.
And I will tell you, as a security professional, complacency isn't the friend of the security agent.
And that's what may be happening here.
And the organizers, whether it's the politicians or the organizers of the event, they want the free flow.
They want to get the people in and out as unobtrusively as possible.
We live in a world now where we see these people that go from the cyber world speaking rhetoric that want to bring violence to the real world.
What does that mean?
That means the game of the security professionals needs to be ticked up that much more.
So if the guests of these attendees that are going to these events, If they have to go through a couple more layers of security, if it has to be off site in a secured venue, then so be it.
Because as we see, these things aren't getting lessened, they're only increasing.
When you looked at the twisted manifesto of this shooter, what did you glean from that?
What do you think you're dealing with?
Donald Trump thinks he's a lone wolf.
There certainly seems to be nothing in this guy's background to suggest he'd ever be capable of this.
In fact, quite the opposite.
He seemed quite a quiet, well mannered, very intelligent guy who was a teacher who recently won an award and so on.
Nothing there that would have had any red flags about a potential presidential assassin.
So, what do you think we're dealing with?
Well, I shake my head in sadness because, as we'd like to blame the bad guys in the Middle East or these terrorists, I blame our politicians, both on the left and the right, with their rhetoric, their violent rhetoric.
Everybody, if you don't agree with someone, they're instantly called a racist or Hitler.
And what's happening is they're becoming self actualized terrorists.
They're always online.
You see these young males online reading this vitriolic rhetoric.
And they want to have relevance, and they go from the cyber world into the real world, and they think they're going to become somebody by taking someone out.
And it's just a sad commentary on us as a culture where we feel we could say anything from behind that keyboard, and you'll always have some sick son of a bee that'll take it as real and say, I'm going to fix what's wrong.
And this is my opinion as a security professional for over 30 years.
It's just, I don't see any end in sight until we stop this rhetoric.
And we make the bad guys pay.
And, you know, it's interesting.
I don't know if it's relevant or not, but a lot of people blame social media and the internet for whipping people up into committing these crimes and so on.
You know, four sitting U.S. presidents have been killed Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and John F. Kennedy.
All of them, of course, long before the internet ever existed.
Ronald Reagan was shot and survived long before the internet.
Donald Trump is the only president in the internet era.
Who's been shot and he thankfully survived?
You know, I'm not sure it's as simple as simply saying the internet's winding people up, social media's winding people up, and so on, when actually the facts suggest this has always been a problem in a country which is awash with guns and a lot of people, many of whom suffer from mental illness or anger management issues or whatever it may be.
Well, you know what?
Listen, if you are determined to take a life, By giving up your life, whether it's a gun, a steak knife, an automobile, or a gas can, you know, they're going to do it.
But if there is a deterrent, if the laws are enforced, we see in states across the country where you have these activist judges, these equitable politicians and prosecutors, where you'll have this revolving door.
We just had a cop killed in New York City, and, you know, it wasn't across the board murder one.
And that's a sad commentary.
You know, people are taking lives and they're not getting properly punished.
That's an incentive, in my opinion, to these people that are either mentally deranged or have an agenda to do harm to others.
King Charles as a Deterrent00:14:29
Bill Stanton, America's Bodyguard.
Much appreciated coming on, Senator.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
10 for that.
Well, turning now to the state visit of King Charles to the United States, the monarch is jetting in for a high stakes four day tour, which is officially in honor of America's 250th anniversary.
Of independence, of course.
His itinerary has reportedly been whittled down to only a handful of on camera appointments with President Trump, not because of the latest apparent attack on Trump's life, but to limit the risk of the King having to respond to the President's wisecracks about the United Kingdom or Trump's quips about the state of Britain's Navy.
And the state of our Prime Minister, as well as the looming Epstein scandal, has the palace on high alert.
Joining me to set the scene are King Charlie's Angels, live from the Royals' uncensored HQ, where preparations are well underway for this Thursday's big launch of Royals'.
Uncensored.
Katie Nicoll, Joe Elvin, and Grant Harrell, welcome to all of you.
Katie Nicoll, apart from anything else, your set looks great.
Let me start with you, Katie Nicoll, if I can.
People were sort of curious about the level of interest that we were going to have in this visit over here in America.
I'm in New York.
I've got to say that, interestingly, the incident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I think, has massively increased interest in the royal visit because the inevitable question is well, are they going to be safe while they're here?
So it's interesting to see how this story's been morphed into the security scandal that happened on Saturday.
How concerned, Katie, do you think King Charles will be about his security on this trip, given what's just happened?
I don't think he'll be overly concerned, Piers, is the honest answer.
This is a man who visited the States 19 times as Prince of Wales.
This is a man who's had shots fired at him himself and who has always remained incredibly calm under any situations.
That are pressurized, quite frankly.
We've seen him heckled over here.
All right, it's not quite being shot at, but he has been in situations that have been precarious.
And whenever I've been on tours with King Charles, whenever I've watched him at close quarters, he never seems bothered by the crowds or anything else.
And that is because he puts his absolute trust in his protection officers who are around him.
I don't actually think that he gives it a second thought, such as his trust in the men and women around him who are protecting them.
And I would make the point.
That security is going to be paramount.
It always is on a tour like this.
This is a tour that has had months and months of wrecking behind it.
Security will always have been the priority when it comes to the King, but particularly in wake of what has happened at the weekend.
Yeah, Grant Harold is interesting.
I was on Fox and Friends over here and this morning, their big morning show at Fox, and they were asking me about the relationship between King Charles and President Trump.
And I said, well, they both share one character trait, which is very noticeable and very, I think, to both their credits, which is.
They're both remarkably calm under literal fire.
You know, we saw it when Trump got hit by a bullet in Pennsylvania and he got back up and said, fight, fight, fight.
We saw it at the White House correspondence dinner where he was remarkably calm as it was all going down and then gave a very chilled out press conference afterwards.
And it reminded me of in the mid 90s when Charles, then Prince Charles, was in Sydney, Australia.
And we've got a clip here.
This is where somebody actually using blanks, it turned out, but attacked him while he was giving a big speech in Australia.
Let's take a look.
I mean Charles was kind of laughing and joking pretty quickly after that Very Trumpian response to somebody trying to potentially take his life.
So they do seem to have that in common.
They do.
And what's interesting, I know both of those coast protection officers, and I remember talking about that incident, and they kind of made the point that he is a very kind of calm individual when things go wrong.
He's such a pro, as you know, Piers.
And that just goes to show, and as you mentioned, with President Trump, it's the same.
They both kind of almost take it in their stride.
If anything, the King doesn't like the fuss of security.
He would rather just.
Do his own thing without being followed around.
I mean, quite often, if you're ever up at High Grove and you're kind of driving along the side of the roads, you'll sometimes see him actually just strolling along, having a little walk.
There is always security nearby, but you know, he does like to try to do his own thing when he can.
So he's very cool and very kind of collective when it comes to his security, strangely enough.
Joe Elvin, the interesting weapon that may have to be neutralized is, of course, Donald Trump's mouth.
We know that he spent the last few months dumping on the United Kingdom, dumping on Keir Starmer.
Dumping on our armed forces, dumping on pretty much everything to do with our great country.
And it does beg the question over four days how precarious is it going to be for our King and Queen Camilla, of course, to be in close proximity to a man with the most inflammatory and unpredictable mouth in the world?
To be honest, I think, Piers, that everybody in our government is probably hugely relieved that of all the people tasked with this, it is actually King Charles, who's had, what, 60 years of life on the front lines.
Of public life and public duty.
He's seen as prince, albeit for the most part of his life, but he's spoken to world leaders all over the world.
And I actually think that the other point to make is that of all the world leaders and public figures that I can think of at the moment, King Charles is the one that I think Donald Trump might listen to, might let get a word in edgeways, might actually sort of like have something sink in that he actually cares about.
I feel like he's so reverential about the British royal family.
And his relationship with the royal family, that I think that he will probably let King, I still do the Prince Charles thing sometimes.
I'm so sorry, Your Majesty.
Still let King Charles land a couple of points about, you know, some of the missteps, some of the insults about things like our army, and actually let it land and let it sink in from the King of all people.
You know, Katie, the interesting thing is, Trump never attacks the royal family.
I mean, he'll attack the renegades.
Meghan and Harry, and I think he said one or two things possibly about Andrew, but nothing too bad.
But he certainly has never said anything critical about Charles or Camilla or William or Kate or the late great Queen, who was one of his heroes.
I mean, he spoke to me about the Queen in the most sort of poetic way, you know, telling me how after the last state visit, he rang me the morning after and he was reminding me that he was six when the coronation happened in '53, and his mum put him on her knee to watch it on television, which had just come out.
The television was only A new thing.
And that was one of the first things that was broadcast around the world.
So it's been ingrained in him from that age.
And I think that that's why there's this sort of reverence he has to the family.
And I think he also loves all the pomp and ceremony.
He does.
Which he's now going to get back, which he's now going to get, you know, be able to give the chance to return the favour.
But I think that for that reason, I expect it will all go pretty smoothly because Donald Trump, he won't want to upset the apple cart with the royals.
He's not going to want to upset the apple cart of his.
You're absolutely right.
I think what's so telling is one of the first engagements we're going to see in a couple of hours' time is Charles going to visit Donald Trump's beehives.
And that just says everything you need to know.
I mean, this is Trump really wanting to get off on the right foot with the king.
And, you know, that will tickle Charles, I'm sure.
And of course, there is the opportunity, as you say, for Trump and the First Lady to roll out the red carpet quite literally at tomorrow's state dinner.
I mean, I think where we're going to perhaps see the most impact and what we will probably be reflecting on later on in the week when we're hosting.
Our show is going to be the address to Congress because I think that's where we're going to see Charles exercising that soft power, that diplomacy, those words you're hearing banded around.
And that's really important because that is his opportunity to address Congress and to perhaps highlight Iran, Ukraine.
He's not going to be political, but it will be his opportunity to get a very carefully coded message across.
And that's going to highlight, I think, quite beautifully why these tours are so important.
Well, yeah, and Grant, you know, the thing to remember is this is a government appointed trip, and he'll be speaking on behalf of the UK government, not as an individual.
I think people need to remember that.
I'm told, it's quite interesting actually, that he never looks remotely nervous about anything, King Charles, but I am told that he's quite nervous about the Congress speech, because you could argue this is the most important speech of his entire life.
Absolutely.
It comes after a period of years, years of real turmoil with the royal family, with the death of his father, then the death of his mother, the.
His son Harry running off to California with Meghan Markle and spray gunning them all on national television.
Andrew, his brother, at the center of this enormous Epstein scandal.
It's hard to imagine in royal history, certainly modern times, a more traumatic sort of six, seven years.
And here he has a chance, the king, to stand at the center of global power, the United States Congress, as the head of our country and state.
And to reset the fabled special relationship and to kind of remind people we're a pretty great country.
I mean that's the opportunity absolutely, and I mean it's a huge honor and he'll, he'll know it's a huge honor.
I mean his mother had the same honor in the 90s as well, so he'll know this is a big, a big deal.
And the thing is about him is he's, you know, as I said, he's, he's very, you know, he takes this very seriously.
I mean I can imagine that you know his speech.
He'll spend many, many hours weeks working on it and I don't know if i'm sure you know this, but he actually somebody once said to me, does he actually write his own speeches?
Absolutely, I remember him doing them.
Of course, he has them cross-checked and everything, but he does them himself.
And as you said, he's been through a lot recently.
And, you know, this could be a very defining moment.
You know, this might be something that this special relationship, I was saying to Katie and Joe that there's very few people that could save this, if we're being realistic.
But the King's got such an amazing way about him.
He's such a, he's so good at diplomacy with everybody, not just with world leaders.
I've witnessed it personally.
You know, he's great the way he deals with situations.
So if there's a man for the job, it's him.
Joe, not everyone over here is a massive fan of the royal family.
There are lots of genuine Republicans in every sense of that word, one of whom is Lauren Bobit, the congresswoman who I had on the show quite recently.
Let's take a look at what she said.
Do you think it's appropriate for King George to meet with members when they come up here as they pursue the Epstein investigation because of his brother?
I wouldn't meet with him.
So I don't know.
I have 1776.
I have nothing to do with King George or the royal family.
I am American first and I have no need to meet with him.
Will you attend the speaker?
I probably not.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe I'll show up.
I don't know.
You guys are in there.
Sometimes we get great photos.
So have a great day, Hank.
Thank you.
I think she still thinks she's back in 1776 when we had a King George III, of course, who managed to lose us the reins of power in this country.
So obviously, she was not only confused, but the interviewer was confused.
Very awkward moment.
But she'll be there at Congress, I'm sure.
What do you think?
I mean, should we?
Does it matter there are Republicans in the UK who don't like the royal family?
Does it matter that there are a splattering of them over here?
Look, it's a view.
Everybody is entitled to their views.
But I know from my own experience just how adored the royal family is in America.
And I think it's rather backward thinking on Lauren's part, I think, to just completely dismiss that special relationship.
We've talked a lot already on this program about how important it is for both countries.
And it just feels, I don't know, rather ignorant to just be sort of like still holding this grudge from 250 years ago that certainly our own royal family and our own government isn't.
Well, I did a joke on X, which you should never do, obviously.
Nobody on X has a sense of humour, particularly about anything to do with sarcasm.
But I made a point that when it was mooted that the Americans may not support us keeping the Falkland Islands and might help Argentina reclaim them, I said, no problem, Mr. President.
In that case, I think we should reclaim the United States of America.
Perfect timing with the 250th anniversary of independence coming up in America.
And King Charles should announce this.
In the middle of his speech in Congress.
Of course, at least 80% of people that read it believed it.
They took it completely literally.
And then all I got was a bunch of what I would call the more lively contingent of my American following, pointing out that they drove us Brits out of America with guns and they weren't remotely afraid about doing it again.
Well, what's the most famous song from the musical Hamilton Piers?
Well, my favourite anyway, You'll Be Back, sung by King George.
There you go.
There you go.
Katie, in terms of importance, I do think this is a highly important moment for the reign of King Charles III.
I think it is a pivotal moment for him.
And it's also a reminder to the world that actually the British monarchy and the American presidency remain the two biggest institutions, I would say, in the world.
I think you're absolutely right.
And Piers, you said earlier, didn't you, that this might be the most important address of his reign.
Analyzing Royal Family Moves00:05:14
And I think it's.
I think it very possibly will be.
We were just speaking before we came on air about the importance of this tour.
I've just published a piece in Vanity Fair, and part of the point I make in this piece is that while we've seen very little change in terms of the Queen's reign, that transition to Charles III, it's been deliberately low key without too many ruptions, without too many ups and downs.
That's very deliberate.
The impact that the King has had on the international stage, conversely, has been quite dynamic.
I mean, we've seen him take that tour to the Vatican and have that meeting of the Head of the Catholic Church with the head of the Church of England, you know, real progression, went to Australia, went to Samoa, he's going to the United States and addressing Congress for the very first time.
These are really big, weighty things.
And I don't think it's any coincidence that the biggest things he's doing in his reign are on an international stage.
And I think that's all about projecting the importance of the royal family.
I mean, constitutionally, we're completely different to the United States.
We know that.
We have a head of state who can't make political comments and won't do at Congress.
But look at what he can achieve, which.
I would say no politician can.
I think it's a reminder of just how powerful the royal family is and that unique role that it's able to fulfill.
We're told that they're going to avoid, Katie, anything to do with the Epstein scandal and Andrew, of course, his brother.
How likely is that going to hold that position?
Or are they going to get awkward people shouting awkward things, do you think?
Well, I think it's very possible they might, Piers, but then that happens over here in the UK.
We've seen the King publicly heckled many times, and it's a bit like being in the midst of a security breach.
He just keeps calm and carries on.
He's the master of deflection.
He'll know exactly.
What to do.
I mean, my inside track was that Camilla really wanted to meet some of the victims of domestic abuse and some of Epstein's victims, but wasn't allowed to do it.
At least that was what the Palace were telling us.
They weren't allowed to do it because of the ongoing police investigation.
But I would also just make the point that when it comes to what the UK have done in terms of the Epstein files and the allegations, you know, we've a prince who's been arrested and is being questioned largely with the Epstein files at the centre of it all.
So, you know, arguably we've done more over here in the UK than they have.
In America.
So if Epstein comes up, okay, it comes up, but the king will know exactly how to deal with it.
Yeah, Grant, the other thing we haven't mentioned, of course, is the king's health.
He's still battling cancer, so far as we know, still receiving treatment.
And I'm told he gets sort of good days and bad days, and some days he's very tired from meat treatment and so on.
You know, he's in his mid 70s.
This is quite a grueling trip to be doing when you've got cancer.
Well, we were just talking about this, actually.
I mean, that's the thing we've got to remember is that he is still.
Having treatment and, as you've said, he has good days.
I've been told that he has good days and bad days and I think we can even sometimes tell you, can you know?
Just by looking at him?
Sometimes he he looks, he looks like he's doing really well, and other days you kind of get worried about him.
I think the thing is Piers, he's aware that that he's got this ongoing battle and he's aware, if we're being realistic, he might be thinking right.
While i'm able to do these kind of overseas tours and duties, he's going to make the most of it.
So when some people said to me he seems to be doing quite a lot for somebody that's going through treatment, of course he is, because while he's able to, He'll want to.
He'll want to do the best he can with the time that's available to him.
So hopefully he's got a long life and a long reign.
But at the same time, he's realistic.
He's not stupid.
And he'll be making sure that he's making the best of his time and being able to do the job that he's there to do.
Joe, finally, a very exciting royal news.
Nothing to do with the King or the President, but the launch of the Royals Uncensored, our brand new channel on the Uncensored Family Stable.
And we've got some very special guests that are going to be involved in your debut.
So we want to make sure everyone watches.
Absolutely.
And because we're such a well oiled machine, Bianca Nobolo, host of History Uncensored, will be covering the surprisingly salacious history of state visits on her channel, too.
So we're morphing all our channels together in a massive royal historical push this week.
But Joe, for those who are maybe watching this and are intrigued by what you're going to unleash, give me a little flavour of what's to come.
Anyway, interested in the royal family and what they're up to and all the analysis behind the meaning of everything you see on the public stage, then you will not want to miss this show.
We are going to be frantically obsessive about the royal family, what they're doing, whether they should be doing it, what they're up to, and we'll be having some of the world's leading experts and authors coming in to give us their takes as well.
And, you know, we all get along very well, we three, but there will be room for fiery debate.
There will be all sorts of different opinions, but they'll run the gamut.
So I really don't think you want to miss it.
It starts on the 30th of April.
Great.
And the one thing I know about you, Katie, Nickel, is you love a good royal scoop.
So I'm looking forward to a few of those as well.
Inform, Irritate, Entertain00:01:00
I do.
You'll get them.
Don't you worry.
I'm very excited.
It's going to be a great new channel.
The Royals Uncensored launches on Thursday, April the 30th.
Best of luck to all of you.
And hopefully, we'll get you back on my channel as well regularly when the stories demand it.
And we'll have what they call, I think, channel integration, which I'm very excited about, whatever it means.
So, thank you all very much and best of luck.
Thank you.
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 Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.