'Trump Called Me a Piece of S***!’ Iran War, Lindsey Graham & More | With Ro Khanna & Mehdi Hasan

I guess people who can lie about a genocide feel licensed to lie even about the illegal detention and threatening of American citizens.This happened anywhere else in the world.It would be a massive international incident.

The battle between Musk and Ro Khanna is because Ro said Elon Musk is a trillionaire and I want to take his money away from him and give it to other people.Are you sad that Senator Lindsey Graham has died?

No, I'm not sad.I'm not celebrating it either.

He argued for wars, including this Iran war that outlives him.He never met a Middle East country he didn't want to invade.

We've had amazing reviews for the book Donald Trump, who over the weekend posted on True Social the book was a joke.90 % of his contents were fake news.

I remember back in 2019, I did a story that he really didn't like.They said to me, you know, the president has a message he wanted me to pass on to you.And I said, oh, what's that?I said, he wants you to know that you're a piece of shit.

On Friday night, Senator Lindsey Graham was speaking to Ukraine's President Zelensky in Kiev and talking up the tough new U .S.sanctions on Russia.The following night, he died suddenly in Washington, D .C.If nothing else, it's a moment to reflect on the fragility of life and to pay respect to a giant of U .

S.politics, but that's just not how it goes anymore.Social media and later the airwaves were quickly filled with outrageous, gleeful commentary about his untimely death, proving once again that there are no taboos left.The same thing is happening in the UK, where shocking news broke on Friday that legendary Conservative MP Anne Whittacombe had been murdered at the age of 78.In both cases, there are tasteless jokes, bitter celebrations, and wild conspiracy theories.In both cases, people have every right to feel and say whatever they like.

And I have every right to feel and say that they are deplorable and classless.Many people didn't like the way that Senator Graham operated and they didn't like his politics.He made himself one of the great DC survivors by cozying up to President Trump when it suited him and he was also for decades one of the most ferocious hawks in politics with claws sharpened for just about every woman.the US could possibly get involved in.Most recently, he was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the disastrous Iran war, which is now raging all over again, as we will discuss.There's a time and a place to debate his ideas and his legacy, and there's a respectful way of doing so.

Celebrating his death is not that.And I said exactly the same thing when President Trump jumped on the graves of Robert Mueller and Rob Reiner.When tragedy strikes, remember the words you were taught when you were four years old.If you've got nothing nice to say, well, just shut up.Well, Mehdi Hassan and Hogan Gidley are standing by.But we begin with a man who's made a lot of headlines this weekend, Democratic Congressman for California, Ro Khanna.

Congressman Khanna, welcome to Uncensored again.You hit the news.because you were detained, you said, in the West Bank in Israel for 90 minutes by armed Israeli settlers during a visit there last week.You posted on there, ex -Israeli settlers brandishing American -made M4s, detained me and other Americans on my trip to Palestine.When the IDF arrived, they sided with the settlers and continued our detention.They made a huge mistake.

Now, you were visiting a small Palestinian village that was abandoned after escalating attacks from settlers and then demolished.You were eventually allowed to continue your journey but this is created a huge firestorm, obviously.A spokesman for the Israeli military said it received a report of Israeli civilians unlawfully blocking the vehicles of foreign nationals and members of the news media near the village.Troops were dispatched to reopen the road, the spokesman said.The military disputed if soldiers had participated in blocking the exit and said the identity of the armed civilian was being reviewed.And when Benjamin Netanyahu was asked about this, he said this.

We're a country of laws and people who break the law, we take them to court.In the WestBank, in Judea and Siberia, we've had thousands, thousands of attempted attacks and warnings against terrorist activities, against innocent Israelis, families, mother with their children driving along the road.They're stopped by terrorists and they kill them.And this has happened again and again and again.There is a vigilante effort, not by the settler community.

99 .9 percent, you know, law -abiding citizens.I don't want vigilantes of any kind, and we are working to put them under the law.But I think if we put things in perspective, we should see that we have thousands of attacks, and some, few, but obvious breaking of the law, then we apply the full measure of the law against them.

Now what's interesting about this is that Haratz, which is one of the big newspapers over there, wrote an editorial on the incident in which it was entitled Ro Khanna got the VIP version.of what West Bank Palestinians face every day.And certainly there have been myriad reports of appalling behaviour by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, very aggressive expansion of settlements and repeated evidence in these reports of the IDF siding with the settlers, even when they appear to be committing crimes.So, you know, Haaretz is not wrong here by categorising this as being you, as an American over there, obviously encountering what Palestinians get all the time.So a long -winded intro, my apologies for that.But Ro Khanna, your response in particular to what Netanyahu said there?

Well, I appreciate your laying out all the facts.I am just stunned that Americans are detained by vigilantes, a foreign government cooperates with those vigilantes,and the American factual account is being disputed.I don't understand it.I mean, there was a New York Times photographer there.It's not just my testimony.

It is the testimony of Israelis who were with me.It is the testimony of security forces.It was written up in detail in Reuters and the New York Times.And the prime minister is denying what happened.His ambassador is denying what happened.I guess people who can lie about a genocide feel licensed to lie even about the illegal detention and threatening of American citizens.

But what is outrageous is that this happened anywhere else in the world.It would be a massive international incident, and it would require the government to immediately arrest the people who did this and to investigate the soldiers who did this.

You know, a lot of your critics, as you know, because they've come racing out to criticise you, the Israeli ambassador to the US, Dr Michael Leiter, said you mischaracterise it.He accused you of visiting the West Bank as a political stunt to distract from your past support of Graham Plattner, the former main US Senate candidate accused of sexual assault, and to promote your own presidential run for the White House in 2028.What do you say to that?

Well, he didn't describe any of my three previous visits to Israel as political stunts.What bothers them is that I said I wanted to have a Palestinian -led tour through the West Bank.And I informed the Israeli government that I was going.Obviously, I got through the airport.They helped me get back home.But what bothers them is that I said I was going to visit Palestine from a Palestinian perspective.

And it's not just about me.They don't want other American politicians to do that.Just today, there was body cams.footage released about this whole incident, which shows that the IDFs were siding with the settlers.And so the ambassador is on national television just lying.Now, their hope is that America just moves on and they can obfuscate the facts.

But they're really risking the anger of a lot of people in America, because this was how they treated American passport holders.

And what is extraordinary is it comes against a backdrop of Israel getting more and more unpopular globally, but especially in the United States with nearly two thirds of U .S.adults now having a negative view of Israel, which is significantly up.year on year.I've repeatedly called out members of the Israeli government like Smodrich and Ben -Gavir in particular, whose rhetoric and actions and in particular actually involving the aggressive expansion of settlements on the West Bank and the IDF complicity in that.These guys, they don't seem to care about how unpopular they make Israel.

If they can have license, to achieve their bigger plan, which appears to be expelling all the Palestinians out of Gaza, out of the West Bank, getting rid of maybe up to a million people out of southern Lebanon as well now, that they have a grand plan here and they don't really care about global opprobrium for it.

You're absolutely right.It's just the utter arrogance of power.Here's what would happen in a normal situation.Let's say this happened to me in Saudi Arabia or China, not necessarily always aligned with the United States.You would have the head of state or some cabinet member come out and say, we absolutely condemn what happened to Congressman Khanna and the other Americans.We will make sure that we take prosecutorial action against the vigilantes who did this.

And if they did that, it would be a one day story.But the fact that they are.calling into question my credibility, calling into credibility the New York Times photographer, the New York Times journalist, the Israeli citizens who were testifying to this, denying that there was anything wrong.It just shows how arrogant they are to deny things that people are seeing with their own eyes on video.

What do you make as a high profile American politician of some of the more vicious commentary about the death of Lindsey Graham?who, you know, I had a lot of issues with some of his stances, not least on the war in Iran, for example, and other wars that he was, you know, he was big on war.But I interviewed him a number of times.I once interviewed him with John McCain and Joe Lieberman, the three amigos, all together, actually.I went down to the Senate and did them there for CNN.It was an amazing experience.

And he also did a lot of bipartisan work you know, crossing the aisle and making things happen with Democrats.So there was a lot of good in him, as well as things I didn't agree with.But this place we've got to as a society, and we're seeing the same here in the UK after the death of Anne Widdicombe, a famous Conservative Member of Parliament here, the glee that some people seem to want to express in the immediate aftermath of a human being's death And we've seen it, as I said in the intro, from Donald Trump towards people like Rob Reiner and Robert Mueller and people like this.I don't like that either.What would you feel about this?What should we do about this as a society?

I actually agreed with your monologue, your introduction, that if you don't have something nice to say about someone who has passed, you can keep your mouth shut at that time.I mean, look, Lindsey Graham and Ivery different views on foreign policy, but he's someone who wore the nation's uniform.He served in the Air Force.He questioned his own party on immigration, saying that there should be a path to citizenship.He would engage in debate.

And it's not just being uncivil.It shows that in our country, we're no longer to see the humanity in any way of people who have any different view, that we are so wedded that we have a monopoly on the truth.The essence of liberalism is to have a humility that you may not have the whole truth, that in a country of 330 million, maybe you should have some sense of listening to other people and having debate.And so there's something really wrong with our political culture that we can't have a decency when someone passes away who we strongly disagree with.

You had a run in also with Elon Musk.He threatened to sue you after you accused him of possibly sentencing four and a half million children to death with the cuts to to the U .S.Agency for International Development.He said in a podcast last month, you know, they're celebrating that he created four and a half thousand millionaires, but they don't talk about the four and a half million children around the world who he possibly sentenced to death by dismantling USAID.He responded by calling you a liar and a robber.

while also accusing you of insider stock trading.Time to sue this liar, Musk wrote.You responded to that by pointing to a 2025 study that determined that without access to USAID resources and funding, 14 million people in lower middle income countries could die by 2030, clearly more than four and a half million children under the age of five.You also said, you know, Elon, I thought you were a free speech guy.Why not debate me on these issues instead of threatening lawfare.Has he actually gone through with suing you or not?

He hasn't.I was a bit surprised you become a trillionaire, the richest person in the world, and you're obsessing about a statement I made.It obviously got under his skin because the cuts that he did to Doge had real -world consequences.And I cited two academic studies, the Lancet study and Adel Gawande study, saying that when he cut food and medicine from some of the poorest people, that potentially could have led to deaths.And it's surprising to me that he threatened a lawsuit because, you know, he claims he's all for free speech.I'm happy to debate him or the ideas on their merit, and I wish he would do that.

Just finally, as we've been talking, a post from Donald Trump on his True Social platform saying, the Hormuz Strait is open and will remain open with or without Iran.We are reinstating the Iranian blockade, so named because it's only stopping Iran ships or customers from entering or leaving.all other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait.The USA will be, from this point forward, known as the guardian of the Hormuz Strait.But as such, in the matters of fairness, we will be reimbursed at the rate of 20 % on all cargo shipped for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the world.The process of formation will begin immediately.

You know, there's a very competing narrative here because the Iranians appear to be exercising control over the Strait and appear to have shut it down again.Donald Trump is adamant that it is open and will remain open, but just in the way that the Iranians are charging a toll and want to have a toll process for ships going through there safely with their backing, Trump is now saying he wants 20 % of allvalue of all cargo shipped to provide security for ships going through.Does any of this make sense to you?

You know the greatest tragedy with Donald Trump is he didn't listen to Winston Churchill's basic advice that to be a statesperson you had to read history.And had Donald Trump read any history about what happened with Mosaddeh and the overthrow of Mosaddeh in 1953, because Mosaddeh wanted to nationalize Iranian oil, and how the cardinal sin of the overthrow of Mosaddeh has destabilized the region, he would never make a statement that the United States somehow wants to take over the Strait of Hormuz and engage in a kind of gunboat diplomacy.He would instead be working with the international community to make sure that we had the denuclearization of Iran, some kind of agreement, and not provoking them by threatening to conquer the Strait of Hormuz or take over the Strait of Hormuz.It is its illiteracy of world history and American history that, in my view, is actually the greatest weakness.

Finally, on Sunday you said you regretted endorsing the former Maine Senate candidate Graham Plattner, who's now dropped out of a Senate race after an ex -girlfriend came forward and alleged he sexually assaulted her.He's denied those allegations but has dropped out.You said you got the call wrong, endorsed a lot of people, but when I make a mistake I take accountability.You were criticised for endorsing him even after a photograph emerged of Plattner with a tattoo on his chest that resembled a Nazi symbol and there was already backlash over online remarks about survivors of sexual assault and so on after other girlfriends had claimed he was aggressive towards them.I guess my question to you would be you know when it comes to these kind of things thefeeling that people get is that politicians get very tribal.

That if the situation had been reversed and this was a Republican candidate, you'd have been straight out the traps, along with a lot of Democrats, saying, this is disgusting, he's got to stand down, and so on, much quicker than you distanced yourself from Plattner because he was on your side.What do you say to people that feel that?

First of all, I think that's a fair criticism, and I appreciate your giving this the appropriate attention.In some other interviews, it becomes half the questions as opposed to one question of many things in the world.But look, do politicians give the benefit of the doubt to their own side?Yes.Do I need to be more sensitive to the biases we bring?Yes.

Should we think about how we treat the imperfections of our opponents and people on the other side with far less forgiveness than we do our own side?Yes.And that's what I said when I said I made a mistake, that I should have seen the signs earlier and I probably should reflect more about this bias that we have in politics.and why I owned up to the mistake of getting this call wrong.

Do you know what?That might be one of the most honest things a politician has said to me in the entire time I've done this show.So I appreciate that.Ro Khanna, thank you very much.

Thank you.Appreciate it.

Summer is almost upon us, and if you're not completely satisfied with your beach body, my condolences, that must be hard for you, it's not just because you're watching the World Cup and drinking beer.Once men hit their 30s, it's harder for the body to lose fat, retain muscle, and recover from injuries.The main culprit is testosterone, which drops off as you age.That's why you hear so many guys talking about it, taking it, and why they feel so much better for doing so.Well, there's no shortage of problems,available, so we wanted to choose one that's all -natural, third -party tested, and made in the USA.

Mars Men is exactly that.It's designed to support healthy levels, which can help your body to burn fat more efficiently and build lean muscle.No weird synthetic additives.For a limited time, we've teamed up to give our viewers and listeners 50 % off for life plus free shipping and three free gifts at mengotomars .com.That's mengotomars .

com for 50 % off and three free gifts at checkout.And remember to tell them that I sent you.Joining me now to debate all this is Mehdi Hassan, founder of Zoteo, and Hogan Gidley, the former White House deputy press secretary.Mehdi, that was quite something.Did a politician just say, yeah, I was biased.I was partisan.

My thinking about this, my judgment was skewed effectively what he was saying by the fact this was a Democrat who was involved in a scandal and that he would have felt differently if it had been a Republican and he's got to think about that.I always like it when a politician shows self -awareness, a bit of brutal honesty and tells us what we're all pretty much thinking anyway.

No, I agree with you.And I think Ro Khanna has won over a lot of admirers because that is the approach he takes to politics.He's quite honest.He tries to be transparent.Excuse me, I've lost my voice after shouting at the screen on Saturday after the game, so...

Do you know what?There are millions of people around the world, Mediasat, absolutely jubilant, not at the result on Saturday, but the fact you've lost your voice.

Not quite.I'll get it back.

I'll get it back for this discussion.Including Hogan Gidley.

And for Wednesday's game, of course.It'll be back for Wednesday and then gone again Thursday.But I think, look, Ro Khanna has been admired by a lot of people for doing that.He goes into a lot of spaces that other politicians don't go into.He's obviously running for president in 2028.He's a guy who goes on Fox and talks to Republican audiences.

In fact, funnily enough, Piers, you mentioned he'sMusk threatening to sue him.I pointed out to Musk, I tweeted at Musk, which, of course, he ignores me, that Musk used to be a big fan of Ro Khanna, used to praise Ro Khanna as a guy who could reach across the aisle.Now he hates him because Ro Khanna called him out.

That is true.Elgin Gidley, welcome back to Uncensored.Just in response to this breaking news from Donald Trump about the Homo Strait, because it seems to me you know President Trump better than most.It seems to me he's got himself into an unholy mess with this Iran war.If he could get out of it cleanly tomorrow in a way that didn't look like an abject failure he would but it's impossible to do that and the Iranians are continuing to exercise control of this strait and as long as they have that It's hard to listen to what Donald Trump says about the Americans now running it, keeping it open, charging 20 percent on all cargo shipments.That all sounds great, but the evidence seems to suggest that it's just not actually what's happening.

The evidence seems to suggest the Iranians have control of this trade.

Before I get to that, may I make a comment about Roe since I'm up in the House of Representatives all the time?He is clearly running for president of the United States.His measured tone is one that he's trying to bring into the party and say, look at me. I can be conciliatory, but also I'm a fighter.But the battle between Musk and Ro Khanna is because Ro.said Elon Musk is a trillionaire and I want to take his money away from him and give it to other people.What Roe doesn't say is that he has hundreds of millions of dollars himself.

And if we're going to get into the business of saying I want that person's money and I'm going to take it from them and then give it to somebody else, I choose myself as the recipient of Roe Connors money.And I want big pieces of that for me.That's why.

But that wasn't that wasn't actually the point of contention between the point of contention between them.on the cuts that were made by DOGE to USAID and the potential impact of those cuts on the lives of children in particular, which have been well reported.Now, Elon may want to contest those, but they are widely reported that one of the consequences could be a lot of people dying, including children.

he should engage because I'd like to see a report that says it's the United States' responsibility and or reason or rationale of existing to pay for everybody else around the world when we have our own problem right here at home.That's really probably part and parcel with the larger argument, which is it's a difference in where the money should go and where it should be spent on.The Republicans writ large want that money spent here in America.Democrats want to spend all over the world to fund all kinds of crazy projects.And so that's the real debate.

May I respond to that?Can I respond on that specific point?Hogan's right.Of course, it's not America's responsibility to feed and provide aid to everyone in the world.That's not the debate.The debate is, should Elon Musk have sent a bunch of 20 -year -olds with no qualifications or expertise into USAID to gut the department overnight?

I think Musk's words were, I fed it into the woodchepper this weekend while you were all out partying.To cut off aid overnight, to leave USAID officials and diplomats and aid workers stuck in foreign countries.Some of them had to be you know, helicoptered out because suddenly all the funding got cut off, their laptops got shut down.And people did lose access to aid overnight in soup kitchens and in aid clinics all over the world.Nick Kristof of The Times went and got names of children who died, and he gave them to Elon Musk, and Musk keeps ignoring it.Musk keeps saying, there are no kids.

Where are the kids who died?Nick Kristof gave him a list publicly, and Musk, of course, ignored it.And the academic evidence does suggest, from multiple sources, including The Lancet Medical Journal,that millions of kids will die, that tens of thousands of children have already died as a result of these Trump -Musk doge cuts.And that's the real issue.By the way, to say we don't have money for it, Hogan, how much are we spending on this Iran war that you promised we wouldn't have, that your president and you said, during 2024, no more wars?

We're spending 50, 100 billion dollars, way more than the USAID budget in Afghanistan or Sudan.So please don't say we don't have the money for it, when we always have money for war.

Well, first of all, that money goes to support and protect the American people and our interests around the world.And I didn't say we wouldn't get into any wars.What I said was the same thing.

Trump said no more wars.

He said he wouldn't get into stupid wars or long term.

He said no more wars.

Those were his exact words.And that's what he meant in the context.And you know that that's fine.We can debate where that money should be spent and how it should how it should go to different groups.But what Elon Musk and Doge did was kind of pull back the curtain on the radical leftist woke policies and ideologies of our dollars being spent in these foreign countries to fund all types of radical weird behavior, as opposed to trying to help and prop up the veterans here in this country.No, we were funding AIDS prevention.

I would say it was a George W. Bush program.Hang on, hang on, hang on.Just to remind you, it's still currently my show.um despite your failing voice you have a tendency to forget that sometimes um Hogan you know the point I think people would make about this is you could make a lot of cuts to obvious ways some of the stuff Doge uncovered clearly was waste and should absolutely have been stopped.I saw that multiple times.But I think they went too far.

I think the cuts were too dramatic, implemented too quickly.And these things do have real world consequences.And I guess my point to you about, well, who do you help around the world?I mean, is your position that the United States shouldn't help anybody?Andif it isn't, then who should they help?

And how much should they be spending on helping people that were being covered by USAID?

Well, first of all, let me ask you, because you just brought up the point, what cuts were okay?

Did you find okay?Well, like I said, there were a number of things, and I can't remember the exact ones now, but I remember when they were being done in real time, a number of things being reported, Elon was saying them himself, where I was nodding away, going, well, that makes sense, and that makes sense.Yeah, that looks like waste.But what about Ebola?Right, so there were certain things in there where I thought, hang on, that seems a risk, a big risk.Why would you do that?

Other things seemed a little bit inhumane.a little cruel, but ultimately it comes down to the question I posed to you, which is, what is America's moral responsibility to the rest of the world?Because on one level, President Trump and you were taking a very strong position in the run -up to the last election, which was America first, America first, America first.No more meddling in stupid wars, like you put it, and so on.Focus on getting cost of living down.Focus on American lives.

A lot of people voted for President Trump on that basis, right?that conflicts with reality.And the reality has been this sudden war with Iran that's proven to be unbelievably expensive, costly to American military lives, is still ongoing, despite we've been told it was all over in two to three weeks.Here we are four months later.It's still raging.The regime is in place.

The IRGC are in control.They control the Strait of Hormuz.They're still firing rockets and missiles at the neighbouring Gulf states.All of this is terrible.All of this could constitute, many people would argue, a stupid war.

Well, remember, Americans were taken hostage in the Octobermassacre, as you well know.Americans have been killed by Iranians for the last four years in this country.No question.From Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, they all said Iran can't get a nuclear weapon and shouldn't.Donald Trump was the first president to say, you know what, I'm going to try and do something about it and prevent that from happening.

What has he done to stop that?Because as far as I'm concerned, they still got every single tiny piece of their enriched uranium.Right.We were told last summer in the 12 -day war that their nuclear capability had been put back decades, Donald Trump's words, not mine.And yet here we were eight months later having to go to war with them because according to Donald Trump today in an interview, they were literally like minutes away from getting one and using it.So none of these things, they can't all be true.

But many of them can be simultaneously.Donald Trump and the moves they made at the Fordham nuclear plant and others was one of the most successful military operations, strategic military operations of all time.

And while it did set back the program...But how could it have been, Hogan?With all due respect, how can that be true?And it also be true that only eight months after that incredibly successful operation, suddenly America had to go to war in Iran to stop them doing what we were told eight months earlier had been put back decades.That can't all be true.

It's not going to stop them from attempting to gain nuclear weapons, as you all know.In addition, I'm sure there were some sites that maybe weren't struck in that particular military operation.That being said, we know the design of the Iranian leaders.They've been very open about it.The death and destruction of Israel and the death and destruction of America.That's what they want to do.

So if Donald Trump can use our military to prevent that from happening, not just for this generation, but for future generations.

Where's the win right now, Hogan?I will come to you.I was just giving you a voice.a rest.The vocal cords need a rest.Hogan, where's the win right now?

Four months into a war that Donald Trump said would last two to three weeks.I'm not seeing a win here for the US unless I'm missing something.

Well, you know already they've talked about ruining their ballistic missile capabilities with military strikes.The nuclear program has been set back.Their ability to pay for their proxies that commit terrorism all over the world is part and parcel of this, too.But as you said, now we're in a different spot.And as I've long commented, that if this appears to be a win, It won't really matter to the American people because it will look like a win.Now, how does that look moving forward to accomplish that?

Are we going to have to take Carg Island?Are we going to have to take control of the Strait?I don't know that.They have military experts that have been deciding these types of outcomes for a long time, gaming this out in the Situation Room, the Pentagon, and other places.So I would imagine in the coming days and weeks what you're going to see.is even further frustrated Donald Trump, because inevitably what we knew was going to happen was that there were some entrenched radical leaders who were committing acts of atrocity, of course, while they were talking to some people in that government that were more moderate.

When I believe they made deals with them, it was the radical side that took over, the radical side that began to fire off missiles, etc.And I think Donald Trump's pretty much fed up with it.He's had enough of it.And that's why you see the retaliatory strikes upward of 90, 150 different installations struck over this past weekend.

OK.Mehdi, I mean, the problem is the Iranians are hitting back.They still appear to be in control of the Strait of Hormuz.Donald Trump is saying, it's open and will remain open, he's now going to do this charge on cargo shipped and so on.Again, those two positions can't both be true, right?We can only go on what we're seeing, and what we're seeing is a very small number of ships getting through that strait.

which we know causes enormous damage to the global economic energy market.So this is dragged on and on and on.I do think Trump is frustrated.I do think he's pissed off with all this.And I do suspect that if we gave him his time again, he wouldn't have got into this.But he is where he is with it.

What do you think is now, in reality, happening?

So, you know, there's the famous phrase, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.This idea that Trump is going to start a blockade again, start bombing again, start threatening Karg Island again, and anything fundamentally will change is absurd.We know that it won't change.We know the two sides are locked into this position.They both have their strengths and weaknesses.We know that negotiation is the only way to deal with the nuclear program.

That was what was on the table on February 28th, that Trump and Netanyahu decided to wreck together.And the war is a disaster.Let me just deal with a lot of things that Hogan has said.Number one, you know, just on USAID, just one last point.The idea this was some woke lefty department.The left were very critical of USAID for many years.

One of the programs that the Doge really undermined was the anti -AIDS program, PEPFAR, George Bush's program.Marco Rubio was one of the biggest champions of USAID, as was the late Lindsey Graham, I should say.So this was not some left -wing thing.Even Republicans used to recognize that aid abroad is a good thing for the United States.Number two, on terms of the actual war and how it's going, it's funny that But Hogan said, well, what about the ballistic missiles?Well, according to U .

S.intelligence, Iran still retains 70 percent of its ballistic missile capability.And the funniest thing about debating Trump people is Trump always throws you under the bus, Hogan saying ballistic missiles are bad.But I heard Trump say a couple of weeks ago that it's fine for Iran to have ballistic missiles.They have a right to have ballistic missiles.And when a reporter said, wait, hold on, you want Iran to have ballistic missiles?

He goes, well, I can't tell them not to if everyone else has them.So Trump is all over the place on this.A month ago, he said the Iranian regime were good people.Hogan says, stupid war appears you rightly say this is a stupid war.And by the way, he didn't just say stupid war.He said no more wars in multiple rallies.

Hogan was the campaign press secretary in 2024.He was there when Donald Trump said, I don't have wars, he said.He said on election night, I'm going to stop wars.I'm not going to start a war.He started this war for no good reason, because Lindsey Graham and Benjamin Netanyahu and others persuaded him to do this ridiculous war.And now we're in this stupid war where oil prices are up.

He also said, by the way, Hogan, you remember, He said, I'm going to end inflation on day one.We're going to bring prices down.Instead, we've got gas prices going up and up and up, because the Iranians know if they hold out for the midterms, it's going to hurt Trump and the Republicans.They have their own incentive for keeping this going.And Piers, I don't know if I said it on this show or another show, but I said, This war is not over when the MOU was signed, when the so -called ceasefire was done.

Yeah, I don't think anybody thought it was.I honestly think Donald Trump is scrabbling to find an exit ramp, and he's finding it really hard because the Iranians...Well, escalating to exit is not a good move.

But you don't think 47 years of terror and October 7th was a good enough reason to...So why didn't he say that on the campaign trail, Hogan?

Why didn't he say, I'm going to become president and I'm going to go to war with Iran to punish them for 1970?Well, actually, I would say, I would look at it differently.

Look, you know, you've got a lot of of bad actors around the world.You've got North Korea, you've got Russia, you've got China, you've got others, right?And America doesn't march in and attack all those countries for good reason, right?Simply being a bad regime, as we learned...Also, they have nukes, Peter.Well, as we learned...

They have nukes.I know, that's the point.But surely...But the principle should be the same.You know, I remember with the Iraq War debate in 2003, I opposed that very vociferously because I just thought, this makes no sense.And it backfired horribly and had 20 years of mayhem and led to the...

of ISIS and so on.You don't necessarily have to march in and attack bad actors in regions.Now, you know, I will never defend the thing this regime has done in Iran.They're a despicable, awful regime that oppresses its people.And they've clearly supplied arms and resources to a bunch of terror groups in the Middle East.All of that is inarguable.

But my concern from day one is that and I said it on day one, is what is the war objective here?Is it to get rid of the regime?And if it isn't, the very last thing you should want to do at the end of this war is empower the regime.And I have a horrible feeling that by working out the unexpectedly huge impact of being able to control the Strait of Hormuz, this Iranian regime now feels more emboldened and more powerful than it did four months ago.That's my honest problem with this.

Foreign policy, as you know, is fraught with a whole bunch of different issues.I've traveled with the president all over the world.We went to North Korea, actually, China, et cetera, to deal with some of the geopolitical threats that this country faces.Now, they're not imminent threats.They're more economic.They're not military in nature in that they're not doing kinetic activity in the moment and funding terrorism to try and kill Americans, which Iran, as you pointed out clearly, has done.

But most news reports pretty clearly have pointed out different pockets within this Iranian regime.And as Donald Trump said, we kind of did get rid of the regime because we killed everybody in line for control of Iran.However, there are two basically competing groups.One, very militant.I'm going to use the words old school to define them.They're the ones who really want to continue down the path of death and destruction, stated goals of killing Americans, killing Jews, et cetera, versus ones who may be a little bit more moderate.

And I guarantee you this administration has spoken to both.factions in both groups.It appears that when we do move toward a memorandum of understanding, it's because we've had conversations with those who tend to be a little bit more sensible and maybe care about the well -being of their own people.And then, of course, those who don't, who have killed many tens of thousands of their own people.tend to take control by striking targets, killing civilians, and then Donald Trump has to change.

This reminds me, you know what this reminds me of, Hogan?It reminds me of the scorpion and the frog tale.which I won't repeat because everybody knows it, but it reminds me about the scorpion.Scorpions tend to behave like scorpions.I just want to end very quickly, Mehdi, because we've run out of time.I've got to say very quickly.

No, no, you can't.You can't because I've got another guest waiting.

Well, I waited half an hour to come on this show and then you'd save my vocal cords.So let me just say this.The Iranian regime, to say there's been regime change in Iran, is gaslighting of the highest order.We've replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, a more radical, hardline version, who has much more of an incentive to get...

Mehdi, I agree with you 100%.So let's forget that.I just want to ask you very finally, Mehdi, are you sad that Senator Lindsey Graham has died?

No, I'm not sad.I'm not celebrating it, either, as you suggested in your introduction.I think it's a bit of a straw man to say everyone's celebrating his death.I think as journalists, Piers, you and I, we hold power accountable.We speak truth to power.I'm not of the school that says when a politician dies, a public figure dies, we treat them like a private figure and just shut up.

I don't think journalism should turn into hagiography.At Zotero, for example, we published a list of what Graham said and did.We just let the facts speak for themselves.He was a man who said the truth.awful things, genocidal things, racist things.And we put that on the record for people to see.

That doesn't mean he didn't also do, I'm sure, good things in Congress as well.But overwhelmingly he argued for wars, including this Iran war that outlives him, that killed 100 schoolgirls on day one of the war.He argued for the Iraq war that you and I oppose that killed over a million people.He never met a Middle East country he didn't want to invade.And I think that's how we should remember.We should remember the full record.

The problem is when powerful people die, people in our media, especially mainstream corporate media, want to just do hagiography and say, what a wonderful person they were.Weren't they lovely?I'm sure many of those powerful people were lovely and they have families who love them.But as journalists, our job is to say, here's what these Here's the truth about their life and record.Here's an accurate obituary.And with Lindsey Graham, the man has a ton of blood on his hands, and we shouldn't just forget that.

No one's asking anyone to forget the record of politicians, but I do think in the immediate aftermath of public figures dying, unless they're genocidal maniacs like, you know, Hitler or Mao or Stalin, Hogan, there should be a modicum of respect for the death of a human being.And my issue with this, it doesn't just relate to the left.Tell that to Donald Trump.Well, I was going to make the point.I mean, Hogan, I presume you would be appalled by the reaction from many on the left to Lindsey Graham's death, as I have been.There aren't many on the left.

But of course, there are many, actually.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.

I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.

I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.

I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it online.I've seen so much of it Hogan, Gidley, if given that we should all be able to condemn the reaction of the left to the death of Lindsey Graham and to Charlie Kirk and others on the right, would you also condemn the way that Donald Trump has talked about Robert Mueller, Rob Reiner, and others that he doesn't like, who die when he trashes them in public quite quickly?Because I never like him doing that.I always think it's wrong, particularly given he's the President of the United States.

Well, do you condemn what they say?and lied about Donald Trump as well, both Rob Reiner and Robert Mueller?

I don't think that's a relevant point.Everyone's entitled to criticise the President of the United States.The point is, should the President use his pulpit to attack Rob Reiner when he's just been murdered?I don't think he should.

Those people have attacked him.

He responded in time.

Listen, I was executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party in Lindsey Graham's era.I've known the man for a long time.Was he right on every issue?Did I agree with him on every issue?No.But he loved his country.

He loved his constituents in the state of South Carolina.He loved being a senator.So did Robert Mueller.You can hate his policies.You can not like some of his votes.I got crossways with him a couple of times.

Remember, in the first Trump administration, he wasn't on board with Donald Trump's closed border policies by any stretch.On the North Lawn, I said, when I was at the state party in South Carolina, he got booed off the stage for supporting George W. Bush's amnesty.We called him Gramnesty for a reason.And his staff called me and said, hey, you know you're off the Christmas card list, right?We laughed about it, and Lindsey Graham finally came on board with the proper policy, which is to protect the American people first.And he cozied up to Donald Trump because he knew that he had enough power and sway within the United States Senate to get things done for the America First movement.

He was a patriot.You can disagree with him, Betty, all you want to.You can not like the wars.I don't like the wars either.But the fact is the man was a public servant his entire life.

But I didn't say, I didn't say good.I'm glad he's dead.

I think it would be nice in public life if every time a big American public servant, someone's given their life to public life in America or the UK, anywhere actually, if both sides just managed to show a modicum of respect when somebody dies.I don't think it's too much to ask.Then you can get into the legacy stuff.Give it a B. Give it a D.or two.

The problem is you say you're in the middle and fair on this.You said the left yesterday, I read your tweet, despicably cruel, heartless and abusive, the least kind people on earth.You did not say that when Donald Trump said the same thing to Mueller and Reuters.I have regularly criticised him.I have regularly criticised him.

I have regularly called him out when he does that.You did not call him heartless and abusive.But you didn't call him despicably cruel.No, I didn't.I do think he's despicable.So let me be clear.

I love it when we end on agreement.We both agree it was despicable.Nothing more hypocritical than people with the hashtag be kind in their bio on social media spewing hateful bile at people when they die.That is the least be kind thing imaginable.I'm going to be kind and put your voice out of his misery.Thank you, Mehdi.

Always good to have you.And Hogan, I always appreciate you coming on, too.So thank you very much indeed for giving me your time.Thank you.

Anytime.Thanks.

Well, joining me now is Jonathan Swan, the co -author of the explosive new book Regime Change Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.Jonathan, welcome to Uncensored.

Thanks for having me, Piers.

As an author, I am insanely jealous of the quite staggering amounts of books you have sold in the previous week.So many congratulations.

I appreciate you.Thank you.

For those who've not read the book yet, and there aren't many on planet Earth, judging by your sales, what is your overarching view of Donald Trump, who's now been president for a total of six years, straddling two and a half terms?

Well, I think one reason hopefully the book is resonating with a wide audience is we give a nuanced picture of Donald Trump.The book is not a polemic.It's a reported story.of how he returned to the presidency and how he's wielding power in ways that we haven't seen for a very long time in this country.In some respects, we've never seen it, in some of the aspects of how he's using power.But we show all aspects of Donald Trump.

We show, you know, the incredible charisma and talent for, you know, mass communication.You know, I've never seen a movement bond with a leader like I have with Donald Trump.We show his obsession with revenge, which has been a thread throughout this administration.We show what I would describe as a sort of feral instinct for power.No president has wielded power over his own party in the way that Donald Trump did last year.There is no precedent, actually, for that.

And we show all aspects, you know, foreign policy.He is taking huge risks on the global stage in this term in ways that make it quite unrecognisable from his first term.And we get into that in the book as well.

Yeah, you know, it's interesting because I rang him the morning after his win, so a few hours after he'd been declared president again, just as I've known him 20 years.And I just said, look, I just eventually answered the phone.He was pretty tired.I just said, You know, this is an amazing achievement, putting aside everything else, to win back the White House after four years in the wilderness is pretty well unprecedented in the history of America.So congratulations.And I said, how are you feeling about it?

And he gave me a little reply.And then he said, you know, things will be very different this time.We spent four years thinking about what we should have done in the first term and the way that the system could work against you and so on.And it's going to be very different.We're going to hit the ground running.hard because we're very prepared and of course he hit the ground with a blizzard of executive orders and you know for for a while I thought this was a a very pumped up

dynamic Trump who had a massive mandate from the country, bigger than he got first time.And I thought maybe we might see a very different character.But then, reasonably quickly, he moved into, I guess you would say, classic Trump, you know, behaviour, but also manifesting itself with some odd decisions.for somebody who campaigned on, we're going to keep out of stupid wars, as he put it, we're going to focus on America first, getting cost of living down and so on, to then launch this war on Iran, particularly given the way it's played out in the last four months, seemed to me the complete antithesis of that and a massive, gigantic gamble with his legacy.Why do you think he did it?

I've asked this question of so many advisors of his, and you get different It's not a simple answer to it.There's an answer that a lot of his, I would say, more isolationist, anti -interventionist advisors don't want to hear, but it's the truth, which is that Trump has always been more hawkish, specifically on Iran, than they would like him to be.In the first term, he pulled out of Obama's nuclear deal against the advice of some of his advisors.He also killed Qasem Soleimani.That was a big risk that some warned against.During the four years out of power, which we get into in the book, It became more personal for him.

The FBI briefed Donald Trump that Iran was plotting to kill him.You can imagine that might have had an effect.And when Ron Dermer, who's one of Netanyahu's top advisers, went and visited Trump after the election, he left that meeting and told associates he thought there was an 80 percent chance that Trump would join Israel in that war.Obviously, Netanyahu played a huge role, very aggressive campaign.You know, we document in the book him going down to the White House Situation Room.

Yeah, I've quoted that many times.

Yeah.But I think above all, it's a story of hubris.I think it's a story of hubris.All presidents, to some extent, overestimate their power in certain ways and their ability to control events.And for someone like Donald Trump, you know, one reading of his life, I was talking to one of his advisors who made this description, it's a story of moral hazard.You do one thing that's risky, you get away with it.

You do something that's even riskier, ultimately, you get away with it.You know, 2024, my lord, you've been indicted four times.You essentially defeat the whole US justice system.You come back in and your biggest enemies are basically on their knees.You know, the titans of big tech.You know, Tim Cook is bringing golden tributes to you in the Oval Office.

You then have what is, in your view, a very successful campaign against Iran last June.And then you pull off this incredible, no matter what you think about the policy, incredible military operation to seize Maduro.And I just think that he overestimated the capacity of the US military and the Israeli military to essentially conduct a regime change war from the air.with no ground component, unprecedented in human history, nothing in the intelligence reports to support this.And I think that's really what happened.

And do you think the Iranians realized just how consequential controlling the Strait of Hormuz would be?And do you think American intelligence had worked that out either, because it seemed to me everybody was slightly running blind about how big that could be.And it turns out it's the biggest weapon that the Iranians have.And they now know that.And you could end up with a situation where this ends with the Iranian regime not only still in place, but actually feeling more emboldened than they did at the start of all this, because they've now got this extraordinary weapon with this stretch of water, which can dictate the global energy market.

It's such an interesting question because obviously it had been contemplated, right?It's in every Pentagon war plan.You know, we have reporting in a book.Trump was briefed on this possibility of the Strait of Hormuz closing.But, you know, it's it's always it's theoretical until you see it in action.Right.

You know, probably I can't speak for the Iranians, but my guess is they knew that it was a possibility.But until you actually do it and see that you can do it, that's something quite different.But this gets back to the sort of magical thinking that defined the planning that led up to this war.Trump himself.did not think that this was a possibility, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, because he thought the war would be over so quickly that this scenario wouldn't play out.And again, there was no intelligence to support that.

But the other aspect of this, which I think is something that people don't really understand about this Trump administration versus the first one, is their secrecy is so intense when it comes to matters that they really want to protect.that it means that you don't have certain subject matter experts in the room.So what we show in the book is the two people that would be forced to handle the biggest global energy shock in history, the Treasury Secretary Scott Besant and the Energy Secretary Chris Wright, they weren't even in the room for the planning meetings that led up to the Irani war.They weren't in the loop.So you're not getting those perspectives in the room.Yes, you're limiting leaks, but there are other costs too.

You've had amazing reviews for the book all over the place.Probably one of the most memorable was, of course, from Donald Trump, who over the weekend posted on Truth Social the book was a joke.90 % of its contents were fake news.If she, Maggie Haverman, your co -author, ever wrote the true story about me, it would actually be quite boring, but loaded with lots of success.He added, also, I just finished a perfect physical at Walter Reed.I do it every six months.

I requested another cognitive test, the only precedent to do so three times.I aced them all, got every question right.Few people in Washington DC could do so, including Maggot, as he called your co -author, and her flunky associate Jonathan Swan.I'd be willing to bet they couldn't get 50 % of the questions right.Anyway, don't buy their book, it's garbage.I mean, I would hazard, I'd take that bet.

I would imagine that you and Maggie would probably get 50 % or more of the cognitive test questions right.But putting that aside for a moment, A, Obviously entirely predictable that he would rage against your book.B, I imagine it will just add to your coffers and sell many more copies.But on a human level, you've always, I think, straddled that line of dealing with Trump very skillfully.It's not easy.I've learned how to do it over the years, fallen out with him, fallen back in with him, maintained a cordial relationship with him personally, but not afraid to criticize him and so on.

I think he respects people that at least afford him respect when they deal with him.even if they want to criticise him.But when you see him calling Maggie maggot, for example, and he goes after a lot of female journalists in quite an abusive manner like this, what do you feel about that?

The honest answer, Piers, is I don't have an emotional reaction.I've covered him now for so long.This is my 11th consecutive year of covering him.And the amount of insults thrown, you know, I'll give you an example.I remember back in 2019, I did a story that he really didn't like.And I was meeting with one of his allies.

And they said to me, you know, the President has a message he wanted me to pass on to you.And I said, Oh, what's that?I said, He wants you to know that you're a piece of shit.I said, Oh, okay, you know, it's a, you know, like, I don't think there is not a person on earth who could be less concerned aboutbeing called maggot than Maggie Hayford.Okay, like, if the idea is like deterring her or whatever, like, it's like, it's so absurd.

And, you know, I'm more concerned about colleagues of mine getting the FBI show up on their door, which is what happened the last few days, getting subpoenaed.You know, a couple of our stories over the last year have been under investigation for leaks.That's the stuff that concerns me.He can call me whatever he wants.It has zero effects.

What do you feel about those subpoenas that have come against the New York Times?

I mean, they're just naked intimidation.I mean, that's not how you conduct.There's no historical precedent for conducting a leak investigation this way.Subpoena is usually the last resort.This is like two days after the story.FBI shows up on your front door.

I mean, it's very clearly designed to intimidate.And we just completely The New York Times is defending the reporters.They're just doing their jobs.It was a news.If there's ever a newsworthy story, it's about the security of Air Force One, which, by the way, is not just the president who rides on it.It's staff, journalists.

It's taxpayer funded, despite what he's saying about the gift.So, you know, legitimate story.And we completely oppose any efforts to stifle First Amendment protected journalism.

For somebody who's covered Trump for 11 years, you look remarkably fresh -faced.A lot of the journalists on the Trump beat tell me they're completely exhausted because the guy just never sleeps, even on Air Force One.How have you managed to avoid exhaustive collapse?

Well, he sleeps now sometimes in the afternoon during these long press availabilities, so that gives you a little opportunity to...Nah.Look, as I say to some of, you know, when I'm whining to myself or to others, you know, we're not in Fallujah.we're simply not in Fallujah.You know, we're just reporters.There's been a lot of

I will say that there's a temptation to kind of build up journalists into some sort of white knight type figures.And I just, it's not my DNA.It's not Maggie's either.The culture I come from, which I think is similar to the culture you grew up in, you know, my first job was as a copy boy at a tabloid in Sydney as a teenager, where the amount of, you know, I was cleaning under desks and getting printouts and whatever, you know, we don't take ourselves, It's pretty hard to be a peacock in environments like that.So, yeah.

I mean, I would say to Maggie that, you know, on the theme of maggots, I remember Trump getting on a rally stage after we'd done an interview where I said, look, I just don't believe the election was stolen.And he went off on a rant about me.And he kept ranting for a whole week about it afterwards.And then he went on stage and said that I was so dead, I was catching flies, was his exact quote about me.And as you can see, Jonathan, I'm very much alive and well.And there are no flies on me.

And Cristiano Ronaldo says you've got good abs.

Well, thank you for noticing that.Thank you for noticing the tweet which I have is my pinned tweet, precisely so that everybody notices it.Yeah, thank you for spotting that.It's a fascinating book.I love your journalism, Maggie's.I think I've quoted the piece you guys did a few weeks into the war.

about that extraordinary meeting at the White House Situation Room with Netanyahu with the head of Mossad joining remotely and so on as one of the most probably most consequential meetings that's ever taken place in modern times and the consequences I felt at the time when I read that piece for Trump could be enormous and the consequences for his legacy could be enormous and we'll just have to see how that all plays out but it's a terrific book so thank you very much indeed for joining me.

Thanks so much for having me Pierce, appreciate it.

Piers Morgan has said that he's 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.