“You’re Being a Complete D*CK!” Piers Morgan vs Don Lemon + Steven Crowder & Joe Walsh

Piers, I think that's completely disingenuous. And I think anyone watching that will know that.

What are you talking about?

And so if you will let me, if you will allow me, please,

please stop interrupting me.

OK, did you invite me here to interrupt me? Are you going to let me answer the question?

I think you're being a complete dick if I'm honest with you.

OK.

I do. Well, that's very kind and respectful of you. hominem attacks. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked a bitter and reductive blame game between right and left, turbocharged by inflammatory calls for vengeance on the fringes of one side and callous celebrations on the other.

Neither side wants to find common cause. Both hold the other side accountable for the febrile climate which led to Kirk's appalling murder. Viral clips appear to show people on either side doing

anything other than taking the temperature down. Stephen Crowder's call for violence is one such

example for which he's now issued this clarification. People may take some clips and tell you that Stephen Crowder is irresponsible, he advocated violence. That's right. I am. I want to be crystal clear about that. I am advocating for lawful violence, defensively, that has been abandoned for years. And I want it to replace where grace was afforded before.

In a moment, we'll be joined by Joe Walsh to debate these issues but first I'm joined by Stephen Crowder for what will hopefully be a clarification on his clarification. Stephen welcome back to Uncensored. As you know a lot of people believed you were advocating for a violent response. You've clarified that now and people are saying you know is that a sincere

clarification or have you just calmed down? It wasn't a clarification, it was a repeat and I stand by it. I am advocating for lawful, maybe let me clarify, ruthless violence in defense of us and our own and if you give me one and a half minutes I can make it extra crystal clear if we need to. What you're seeing with Charlie Kirk is what got through. Charlie Kirk lived under a cloud just as I have. It's the reason that I stopped doing Change My Minds, where there were 12 felonious assaults,

attempts at battery and attempts on my life. And I know quite a few and many I don't of Charlie Kirk. I wanna be clear. I want those on the left to speak freely and to be able to host their events with minimal security as they do now for the rest of their lives. Just as surely, I want them to be deathly terrified of showing up and acting with the increasing violence

as they have at our events. And that goes both ways. Hey, if there's a spat of right-wing violence that's spreading across this country, treat those people the same way that we treat yours. But you won't find it.

And let me just address a couple of things here. What I think leads to violence, they'll try and blame it on Donald Trump. They'll give us a bunch of reasons. Let me be really clear here. Joe Walsh will say that this is an overreaction.

He said that yesterday. He doesn't understand why this is a big deal. That's untrue. He will say a false equivalency between Charlie Kirk and the murder of the Hortmans in Minnesota. That's provably untrue. And finally, he will place blame as the left and the spineless right does for all of this on Donald Trump,

conservatives, rising figures and the rhetoric for temperatures in this country. That is provably untrue. Donald Trump ran on law and order and won because of leftist violence. All of this, let me finish with this, all of this is by design so that the left and spineless right can make this conversation about conservatives responding to the cold blooded terroristic assassination and gleeful celebration thereafter of a young man who did nothing more than sit down at a table and allow anyone to speak their opinion. And I know what it's like because I was in that spot.

I started it and Charlie cited it as inspiration. If I could change one thing, and I do believe that I'm partially responsible for this. I failed people. I've had to do a lot of soul searching. When I did change my mind and started in 2016, The idea was, hey, calling the left on their bluff, civil dialogue with anyone to the tune of billions of plays and hundreds of hours.

And it got increasingly violent. And what I didn't tell people, I told people out there, go do this on your own campus, have these conversations. I advocated for it. And Charlie took it to another level. He was unbelievable at it. What I didn't do, I didn't tell people

about the threats because I didn't want copycats. I didn't tell them about terrorists from Yemen through Sweden showing up in East Grand Rapids. I didn't tell them about concrete milkshakes. I didn't tell them about my tires getting slashed, about people trying to firebomb my car. And maybe if I would have picked up the phone, maybe if I would have used this megaphone to tell people, it's real life out there and the left wants you dead, maybe Charlie would have had a fighting chance. Maybe I could have done more.

Right now, I'll tell you this, I see a lot of people out there, peers. See a lot of people out there talking about picking up that microphone. And I hope people do because the alternative is silence. But I want people to know that wherever that microphone is

and whoever thinks about picking it up, you are in the crosshairs. People say, bring down the temperature. Okay, how about we bring down the temperature to doing something like, I don't know, sitting down at a table and allowing anyone with a thought or opinion to discuss it rationally. Would that bring down the temperature?

Because they took his life anyway.

I, listen, I know you knew Charlie Kirk well. I feel your passion. I feel your anger. I feel your hurt. It's a painful time. I think everybody on the conservative right in America,

it's a very painful time. And I feel that. But in the interest of fair play, which Charlie Kirk would want, we have got the former Republican congressman and the host of the Social contract, Joe Walsh, joining the debate. Exactly

what Charlie would encourage, I think, which is, Joe, you've just heard a very impassioned statement there from Stephen Crowder. What's your response?

Oh, I get it and I feel it and I appreciate Stephen Crowder expressing how he feels. I really do, and I don't know what my fight is. I don't have a fight with Steven Crowder. Steven, good to see you. There was a lot you said about me there in the intro. I don't remember, because I'm getting older. I wish I'd written down some of it.

I did my best for the past week, because I knew Charlie as well, not to say that this guy was a right wing. He came from a God-fearing gun Utah family. He was definitely right, like some on the left did. I didn't know who he was until we had the facts and the evidence. And it's clear, Pierce and Steven, that this was a tweet.

I had the facts and the evidence. And I told you he was on the left from the bullet engravings that we received from a leak and you said we were wrong and people on the left said we were wrong and that matters because the shooter was still out there and so was the Kirk family. I'm trying to save lives.

Stephen, Stephen, you're gonna save lives, Joe?

Maybe, no, maybe some people did. I don't know when I ever said you were wrong anywhere. When you said first time I've talked to you or even we don't know. We know he's a we know he's from a white family in Utah and you retweeted. No, no, no, no. And you went out and said this guy is not a left-wing extremist. He is. OK, go ahead. I did say that, my friend. From the moment Charlie

Kirk was assassinated, I said, we don't know who did it. And once we found out who did it, and once we found out who did it, we don't know why he did it. So let's all wait to figure out why he did it.

But we did know.

Yesterday, let me, Stephen, Stephen.

And I remember you saying that he sold his soul to Trump before the body was cold.

Stephen, Stephen.

And criticizing his wife.

Stephen, let me finish, brother, please. And then we find out in no uncertain terms, by the way, Pierce, I mean, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. There, now we know it. This will go down in history as an act of left-wing political violence.

Yes.

I mean, I would say, Stephen, that is an honest statement there from Joe. It's not. Yeah, but is he honest on your side, Stephen? Be honest. Is he honest to say there is no problem with violence on the political right? Because there has been historically a lot of violence associated with the far right in America.

That, again, is just a demonstrable fact. To pretend there's never been any is to be disingenuous.

Demonstrable fact by what? No, it's not to be disingenuous. It's absolutely correct. And I understand because I've seen Joe and people of his ilk retweeting these out there. It either comes from Cato Institute or it comes from a recent Economist article. Something very, I can tell you how all of those numbers are wrong. Remember the man in Portland? Remember Aaron Danielson who was shot dead point blank by an Antifa member? Michael Reinold who said we got a Trump supporter, bang bang dead. That wasn't listed as political

violence. Look at that chart, the year 2020, the summer of love, no political violence from the left. I could go through the methodology, and I have, and I have brilliant researchers who have, it is demonstrably untrue. No one is saying there is no violence on the right. What I am saying is that people on the right have to have arms, security, flak jackets,

an entire strategy when they go out, and those on the left don't. That is verifiably true. What is dishonest is to say we didn't know. You know what else wouldn't have been included in these crime stats? Anyone want to make this argument, you're talking to the wrong guy. The Covenant High School shooting.

Audrey Hale. Cato said we included it because it was borderline, even though the police said they didn't think it was politically motivated. of a comedy show right here. No one would have known that motivation. We found it, we leaked it, we processed it, we verified it, and we were met with resistance and threats of lawsuits from the local police department, the mayor, and the FBI.

They said it was a lie on the outset, just like they said the engravings on the bullet casings were a lie on the outset. The left lies, they label you fascist, they label you a totalitarian. And how do you deal with those people?

Well, you don't do it at the ballot box. We all know that.

It's not just how the news is told, but what's left out, which concerns me. And when a friend of the business recommended I try Ground News, I gave it a go. Quite honestly, I was impressed. It does something brilliant which most news platforms are afraid to do. It's an app and a website that lines up coverage of the same story from across the spectrum,

left, right, international, and lays it all out side by side. That kind of transparency is increasingly rare and is vital. Ground News helps you to dig in and find the facts by showing you who owns each outlet, what their bias is, and which stories are being buried. Has an especially revealing blind spot feed, which services stories being reported almost exclusively by only one side of the political divide. I wanna hear every side before making up my mind.

Ground News makes that possible and easy. It's independent, funded by subscribers and not corporate interests, just like my show. And it's a tool that puts the power back in your hands. Go to groundnews.com slash peers to claim your 40% discount

the unlimited access vantage plan and see what everyone else is missing. That's groundnews.com slash peers.

Every position that the right holds has been presented as violence, including silence by the way. I know there's a poster behind Joe Walsh right next to his No Kings poster. In other words, if you're pro-life,

it's violence against women. If you're against men and women's sports, it's violence against trans. It's genocide. It's erasing them. If you're against Juneteenth as a holiday, it's violence. You're pro-First Amendment? Violence, gun violence. And then if we remain silent, that's also violence. And so people deal with the right with violence. Here's my challenge. Find me one, one, one example of a Charlie

Kirk on the left, not an elected official. I'll allow any speaker, any comedian this century. One example of somebody who was murdered, assassinated, hemorrhaged out in front of his family in cold blood and gleefully celebrated thereafter and the polls show that a majority a majority according to YouGov recently of Democrats think it's somewhat too acceptable 38% 77% of Republicans said not acceptable. What I'm saying is that Charlie Kirk was hunted he was hunted we are being

hunted and I don't want to see any more dead friends. Violence, absolutely lawful, ruthless, defensive violence.

Okay, Joe.

I'll just, hey Pierce, I'll just be brief again. The data is pretty clear and historically it's been pretty clear that there's political violence on the right and the left in this country for years and I could argue and I would argue, but I won't here that there's historically been more political violence coming from the right. But suffice to say, I think you and I, Pierce, would agree,

there's a history of... Please argue it. There's a... Hey, Stephen, let me finish, man, please.

Please argue it. You can't just make a vague claim and not substantiate it.

Pierce, you and I would agree for the sake of this conversation that political violence is in fact a both sides problem. Steven, you would acknowledge, I think that there is political violence on and there has been political violence on the right as well. So why don't we all just condemn it all? That's what we all should do.

Yeah.

No, I don't. I know. I don't agree with the premise. And I'm having to agree with a nebulous premise because you presented no facts. The very, the very source that you cite. And by the way, I'll make all of mine publicly available.

Hold on. I'm finishing now. Let's do it like grownups. You can say your sources online. George Floyd riots. George Floyd riots. Not included. Darryl Brooks. One question. Not included. Not included. Man shot dead for voting. Trump not included. Those numbers are not to be trusted and neither is someone parroting it. I'll answer your question if you answer one of mine after. Go ahead, please.

Melissa Hortman, the Democratic state legislator in Minnesota, last three months ago, gunned down by an anti-abortion Trump supporter. Yes or no?

Wrong. How do I know? Because Vance Bolter, the man who did it, wrote in his letter that it had nothing to do with Trump being pro-life. He blamed Tim Walz. And here's what you also don't see. Did you see anyone at the Hortman's funerals or vigils spitting on them or pantomiming being shot in the neck?

Did you see anyone celebrating the death of them gleefully? Did you see so many professors doing so showing children? Really? Point me to one. Yes. Point me to one person spitting at their vigil. Utah Senator Mike Lee mocked the attack. How do I predict everything you say all the time?

How?

Donald Trump.

He did not the attack.

He really did. Donald Trump. OK, let me jump in. Anyone spit at the vigil. Anyone celebrate the murder. Let me give you an example.

Pierce, I don't know.

Go ahead, Pierce.

Hang on. where the right behaved very badly and that was over the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband. I saw the gleeful responses after that from the right, the memes, the mockery and so on. I thought that was very distasteful. Would you agree, Steve?

If you want to argue an equivalency between a man getting hit with a hammer in his underwear and a man bleeding out in front of his child, go ahead.

I'm not saying they're equivocal. I'm just saying it's an example where I felt people on the right showed a complete lack of humanity towards the man who'd been attacked because he happened to be married to Nancy Pelosi, a political opponent. And so it's not like this has never happened.

I don't agree. I don't think it's even remotely proportional. Let me ask a question here. This is why I'm giving this message, and this is why I hope people listen and protect their own. Joe Walsh, you're there, since I answered your question.

You're there, Utah, in the crowd. It's not a mouser. It's not a 30-out-6, but it's a man winding up a milkshake to launch at Charlie Kirk. You don't know if it's strawberry,

chocolate, vanilla, acid, or concrete. You see him before anyone else does. I don't understand your question. I'm sorry. I honestly I don't. Someone winding up a milkshake to launch at Charlie Kirk. You don't know if it's strawberry,

chocolate, vanilla, acid, or concrete. You see him before anyone else does. I'm sorry. I honestly I don't want a milkshake to launch it Charlie Kirk You don't know if it's strawberry chocolate vanilla acid or concrete you see before anyone else does do you stop him and hurt him?

Yes, I certainly stop him. I do all I can to stop him. Yes

Good. There's a start. That's what I'm advocating Every single person out there because we have been living with this shadow over us. And I know, look, here's the thing too, Joe, I understand your rhetoric. I understand where you're coming from. And I know that you met Charlie when he was 16,

as I understand it, right? He was very, very young. And I understand that maybe you were somewhat of a mentor figure. It's because of the failure of Republicans like you that me and Charlie Kirk exist, who are willing to take back the territory that has been conceded

and we are willing to pay with our lives. We shouldn't have to be. Academia, media, the press, big tech shouldn't be dominated by the left exclusively all the time. Charlie Kirk shouldn't be out there alone sitting in that chair taking on all comers. He shouldn't be inspired by people like me who are comedians.

He should have been inspired by people like me who are comedians. He should have been inspired by people like you. Instead he was inspired to go the other way. Maybe that's why he said he sold his soul for Donald Trump before the body was cold. Still want to do the no true Scotsman holier than thou thing?

And Stephen, I'm assuming you would do the same, correct, if somebody were throwing a chocolate milkshake at a right, at a left wing speaker, correct?

No, the reason I bring it up is because we didn't. We didn't. But I've had them launched at me. Would you, Stephen? And the reason would you know, I didn't I didn't. And now I would. Now I would. Because now I would. Yes. Have I answered your question? Yes. Now I would. And I

advocate that everybody else is the same. So Stephen, Stephen, common ground. You and I, two Americans, would both stop any politically violent attack on any public figure or speaker that we saw. You and I agree to that. And you and I, I hope we both agree that we should condemn all political violence. End of story.

I am condemning, of course, all political violence. It is coming from one side and the prescription is ruthless, aggressive, defensive, lawful violence on anyone who tries. If someone behaves in a way, for example, I've been sucker punched, I've been collar dragged, I've had attempts on my life, I have been doxxed. If anyone behaves in a way where if they behave that way at a town hall, at a restaurant,

you with your family would result in their severe ass-beating. They deserve it at a political rally. They deserve it at a private function and a public speaking engagement. And the right has not been doing that because we've been taking the high road and the left has acted with impunity. That's why you see professors,

it's not just that they're showing children a snuff film on repeat in order to create a generation of psychopaths, by the way, that's how you do it. It's that so many professors are doing it because they don't fear any ramifications. You can't find that on the right. Find me one example, one example of a Charlie Kirk, not an elected official, a person who did nothing more than express his opinion and allow anyone else to do the same, who lost his life.

I also think in relation to that, that I saw Charlie Kirk's producer today getting quite emotional as he talked about the difference, for example, between the reaction to the murder of George Floyd, which I thought was despicable, and the murder of Charlie Kirk, which was despicable, is that one precipitated nationwide rioting and lawlessness as people were so enraged they took to the streets, and the other took to people going to church. You know?

Also call me when Charlie Kirk died

with a speed bullet in his ass.

I thought it was an interesting-

He mugged a woman with his toddler now.

I thought it was an interesting-

Let's avoid hurt people.

I thought it was an interesting observation, Joe, in terms of the difference.

No, no, no, Pierce. Let me sneak in one more thing before Stephen goes off. Also, the assassination of Democratic Melissa Hortman in Minnesota by an anti-abortion Trump supporter, you didn't see violence after that. And the other thing you did not see after a—let me finish, Stephen, let me finish, brother.

A man who blamed Kim Walsh.

Truth matters. Truth. Dishonesty. For men's violence, Joe.

After a Democrat was assassinated in Minnesota, you also did not see the Democratic Party in the left declaring a war on the right, saying that they did it. They did it. The evil doers did it.

This is a battle between good and evil. You didn't hear any of that when a Democrat was assassinated. We should condemn both, Pierce. Condemn anybody celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder. Condemn it. And we should also condemn anyone using Charlie Kirk's murder to call for some, declare some war on half of the country, and this is a battle between good and evil. Both of those reactions are dangerous and despicable.

Final word to Steven. Steven, final word to you.

Steven, you got the final word, man.

Wrong. I think using Charlie Kirk as saying that he sold his soul to Trump before the body's even cold. I agree with Charlie Kirk's reaction to George Floyd because the media lied. Lies foment dishonesty. And I'm not calling for a civil war. I made it very clear I want the left to be able to continue to speak without security

as they often do. I just want them to be deathly afraid to try what they've been doing with the right for a very long, forevermore going forward. But if we talk about this, hey, there's one time that there weren't registered as violent crime. Charlie Kirk didn't hurt anybody, George Floyd did.

Charlie Kirk is very, very different from George Floyd. Dishonesty is what ferments, I'll leave you with this, is what ferments violence. And you know what? When you say war of good and evil, show me one time where the people who are actually evil

are willing to paint a war of good and evil. Because you know what? If it ever comes to that, God forbid, maybe the people advocating for abortion up until and including birth and genital mutilation for children, including hiding them from their parents in the state of Minnesota, maybe they could look around at themselves and say, hey, if this is a war of good and evil, maybe we're the

bad guys.

OK, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you both so very much. I appreciate it. Thanks, guys. If you're stressed about back taxes, miss the April deadline or your books are a mess. Well, don't wait. The IRS is cracking down. Penalties add up fast. Five percent per month and up to 25 percent for not filing.

Tax Network USA can help. They've assisted thousands of Americans from employees to business owners and people who haven't filed for years. They have direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side. Tax Network USA knows how to win. You'll get a free consultation

and they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe. So don't wait for the next IRS letter. Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnA.com slash peers. That's TNUSA.com slash peers for expert help on your taxes. Well, Charlie Kert used new media to devastating effect

in his mission to mobilize young people for his conservative movement. He understood the power of a viral moment to cut through a complex argument and the great appetite for proper debate. Just two of many things we all love about our digital culture. There's plenty of things

many of us find repellent about it too. Witch hunts, vile smears we'd not dream of using in real life and the business of saying things purely to generate attention through rage. Many prominent figures on the right have accused Don Lemon of doing exactly that this week, ironically, for making the very same claim about them.

The thing that is so obvious about it and I think is so disgusting is that you don't really care.

You don't really care about Charlie Kirk. What you care is that this is a moment that you can use for clicks to boost your podcast or your streaming show or your radio show or your television show or your news show or your MAGA bona fides with the MAGA group or your political stripes that you can improve it or you can have a moment where you're crying in front of the cameras you gather all the reporters at the at the Capitol and you go and's your fault, and it's your fault,

and it's the left, and whatever.

Well, Don Lemon is of course a former CNN anchor like me, who now hosts the Don Lemon Show, clips of which appear frequently in many popular podcasts. And he joins me now. Don, how are you?

I'm doing very well. How are you? Good to see you, Peter. We were both... It's a stiff introduction, but it's great to see you.

We were both greatly lamented ex-CNN anchors. In fact, we shared an office. You took my old office. I feel like we've got a lot in history together. Your reaction to Charlie Kirk's murder has stirred up a lot of anger on people on the right, particularly the clip we just heard,

where you talk about them not really caring about what happened to him and just reacting for clicks, crying for clicks and so on. I've interviewed quite a few people who are on the conservative right who knew Charlie Kirk well. I've not detected any of that myself.

I do think that they were genuinely, utterly horrified by what happened. Do you

not think that what you said there was insensitive? No, I don't. I'm surprised because I was actually taking up for Charlie Kirk. I was taking up for him as someone who died a horrible, untimely death, and that there are people who are out here trying to capitalize off of his death. I don't think it's that much different than what his friend, who is his confirmed friend, Candace Owens, is saying about folks who are using it for political and for career expediency. There are those who are doing it and there are those who are not.

And if you are not, then I don't think anyone who's not doing it took any offense to it. You know, there's an old saying here in America, a hit dog will holler. So the ones, the folks who I felt a certain kind of way and that I touched with that statement or those statements, then perhaps they should take a look at themselves. And by the way, as you know, peers, you've been a victim of this. Many of us have been a victim to this.

You take a clip, you put you do a short clip that is out of context and then you make it into something that you wanted to be rather than what I said. I don't see many people on the right at all of me saying, running clips of me saying I think you know it was horrible what happened to Charlie Kirk. It should never have happened. I feel terrible for his wife and his kids. The kids are fatherless.

She does not have a husband right now. I don't believe in political violence at all, whether it comes from the right or the left. No one played those clips. What they did was take someone like me that they can demonize. They feel that I'm on the left. As you know, peers, we work together. I'm not on the left. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm not on the right either. I have my own mind and I make up my mind and I decide on

issues based on what I believe in and based on facts, not a certain political ideology.

Well, I mean, look, I would say that you're clearly a lot more left than right, surely.

I mean, I've never heard you espouse a conservative sentiment. I am a lot more fact-based than I am anything. And so I don't believe you. You are free to think that I'm on the left. And perhaps in this time that we're in now with the Trump administration and with MAGA, perhaps facts are on the left. And if you deem that being on the left, then and so be it I don't see myself as being a political figure or a figure who's on the left.

It's interesting your characterization about facts because you know I would argue that one of the reasons Trump got reelected against all the odds if you think about what happened after January 6th and everything else the fact that he got reelected I always felt was three pronged right one was immigration I think Biden completely dropped the ball with immigration, particularly on the Southern border.

Second, the economy. And thirdly, the whole woke issue, the whole woke culture. And in particular, I would say, the issue, for example, of trans athletes in women's sport, which is to me, if you're talking about facts,

it is something that most Americans looked at and went, you know what, this is ridiculous. How can you deny biological reality? How can you go against scientific fact? So many would argue that it was the Democrats who lost track of facts

and moved into a slightly strange, surreal place

where they were trying to deny stuff, which most Americans went, well, that's ridiculous. and moved into a slightly strange, surreal place

where they were trying to deny stuff, which most Americans went, well, that's ridiculous.

Yeah.

Look, I would not qualify it the way that you're qualifying it. I do believe that you have a point about the Democratic Party not understanding the moment that we're in, that America's in right now. As far as trans athletes, I think that was,

although I understand to certain people it is a big deal, it is such a minute, small percentage of the population and the trans athletes that are actually in schools and that are competing in competitions, it's so minor, it affects so few Americans, I'm shocked that it was used to the level that it was in the election and to great success. And so I must commend the Republicans on an issue that wasn't really an issue for most

Americans, that they made it into something that helped to catapult this president into office.

But you see, I've heard a lot of Democrats using that argument. And I said to them, you know, one of the most effective – I'm not saying you're a Democrat, I'm just saying I've heard a lot of Democrats say it. And my argument to them has been, yeah, but the New York Times reported that the They Them ad that Trump put out, which gathered momentum and then became used more and more and more, was one of the most effective... It was very successful. I think it was extremely successful.

It was one of the most successful modern political adverts because it cut to the point, I think, again, about common sense, that most Americans actually, you know, maybe they don't have it in their top five things they care about. I would absolutely accept that. But when you actually ask them,

do you think this is fair? Do you think it's right? Do you think it's equal? Do you think it's good that women's rights would be eroded? They actually then do get quite exercised about it. Hello and welcome. We're beginning with some breaking news.

Woke is dead. The war on common sense is officially over. Cancelled celebrities are emerging from Twitter jail. Virtue signaling has been outlawed under punishment for mass ridicule. And we are finally free to call a spade a spade.

So what was the cause of death? How did the silenced majority finally win? And what exactly is going to take its place? Woke is Dead is my definitive story on the rise and fall of Woke, as well as the

common sense heroes and PC villains who have dominated news and culture across 10 years of madness. It's also my personal roadmap back to a less divided world. A world where we can agree to disagree, where debate triumphs over censorship, and where common sense is king. You will be shocked by how much you agree with me.

Look, Piers, I'm not here to argue over trans rights. I don't think it cut to, necessarily cut to the argument of common sense. I think they found, simply found an issue that they could capitalize on based on fear or some perceived religious value or what have you.

So I'm not gonna sit here and demonize trans people, trans women or trans men, because I just don't think that that is fair and that is productive in this moment. I'm not gonna go back and litigate why Donald Trump won and on the issue of trans.

We simply disagree on that. I think it affects so few people. I think it was something that was blown out of proportion. And while there may be some people who are affected by it, and if they are, I'm sorry that that happens. But I, or happened or happens, but I just don't think that that was an issue that focuses

on Trump. happen or happens, but I just don't think that that was an issue that focuses on... So when you see, for example, in the Paris Olympics, when you saw Iman Khalif, an Algerian boxer who had been banned from the World Championships for testing positive for male chromosomes, when you saw a young female Italian boxer quit after 40 seconds because she'd never been hit that hard and genuinely feared for her life. And Iman Khalif goes on to win gold medal at the Olympics. Does that not ring an alarm bell for you, Don?

I mean, do you not think that the reason we separate sexes in the Olympics is because males have an advantage? I mean, why would you not think that's important?

It's a gold medal.

Do you want me to tell you the truth? Yeah. I'm just going to tell you the truth. Let me tell you, Pierce, I'll tell you the truth about this. I heard about this story, but it's not something that I focus on. I'm not watching the Olympics like that. Maybe I'm different.

I'm just not. I'm not that interested in watching everything. I like to watch the swimming. I like to watch the gym, the gymnast. I'm not interested in boxing or any of that, because I think it's a brutal sport anyway. So for me, it's just not that interesting. I'm sorry that anybody was hit that hard, but if you put yourself in the arena to be hit

and someone hits you hard, then whose fault is that?

Well, you expect to be hit by other women, not men.

Well, I don't know that. I don't know who she expected to be hit by. We call it violence. I'm sure she saw, I'm sure whoever was in that competition understood who they were going into the ring with and if you put yourself in that competition in the middle of a ring where punches are being thrown then you can expect to get hit hard whether it is a man or a woman

and that's that's all I have to say about that. So you would have no objection to

men fighting women in a boxing ring?

I did not say that.

I just said that's all I have to say about that.

But isn't that the implication of what you're saying?

No I've said in many different ways that's all I have to say about that.

Right. I'm just trying to clarify what you just said about the boxing. Are you saying it's OK for men to beat up women?

I think I've been very clear. That's all I have to say I think I've been very clear to you that's all I have to say you have I'm just a bit startled by why back if you don't understand no I'm just

startled by what I think I just heard which is you seem to think it's okay for men to hit women in a boxing ring is that what you said clarify I didn't say

I don't think it's okay for men to hit women anywhere

So why would it be okay in a boxing ring?

Well again, I didn't say I didn't say it's okay in a boxing ring I just said that's all I have to say about it. So it's okay for men to hit women

So then it sounds like you agree with me that biological men should not be competing against women in a boxing ring? Piers, no matter how hard you try to, I told you, that's it.

It's not a gotcha question.

I'm not agreeing with you. It's not a gotcha question. I'm not saying it's a gotcha question. I'm just saying that I am done with this particular conversation. I don't think that it is productive.

I've said what I said, and I'm not changing it. I don't agree with you. That's it. But if you were doing your old show at CNN, you would have listened to your own response

and gone, what exactly did he mean by that?

I probably would have said, okay, that's what you said, and then I would move on.

Okay, we'll move on. You've criticized the MAGA right for turning Charlie Kirk into a martyr. You said, if a black man on the left went around saying what Kirk said, the right wouldn't consider him a hero. It's an interesting point. Let's take a listen.

White women do not have brain processing power and are stealing jobs from black men. The right would fucking lose their minds.

Mark Lamont Hill,

Roland, Michael Eric Dice, let's just say these brothers, or Bakari Sellers, or someone like that. If they went around saying some shit like that, they would be canceled immediately, they would be fired,

people would scrub them from their whatever business that they work for,

or if they said when I get on a plane and I see a white pilot I'm like damn we're gonna you know I'm worried. It's interesting because I've seen that blow up a lot in the last few days so I went back and actually watched exactly what Charlie. Where. Where are you watching all this? I haven't seen any of this blow up that you're talking about. Oh yeah, it's been everywhere. Everyone's been showing clips of Charlie Kirk all week on social media.

I have not seen it. I guess maybe I'm just not on social media.

What's interesting is when you watch it all in context, it's a discussion that is prompted by the fact that Joy Reid, who you know well, had admitted she only got into Harvard because of DEI. So he said it all in the context of her revealing that, which I think changes the impact of what he was saying. He wasn't just coming out with this. He was saying, there's Joy Reid admitting that she only got into Harvard because of DEI.

What's your question?

So, my question is, you've cited that example of him just unilaterally saying black women don't have the brain processing power and so on. But when you actually watch the whole clip in context, that's not what he said.

You're making my point about the clip before, and which is the same point about the clip now that you played of me, where the context is explained, which is he was talking about not only Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Ketanji Brown-Jackson. And it wasn't DEI that they were referring to, they were having discussions about affirmative action and about qualified people, qualified women of color, who were offered opportunities or given opportunities that they may not have been given if it were not

for affirmative action. And nothing to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion. And so what he said, he said, and I watched the clip, he said that what they were admitting to is that they were somehow a DEI higher and so on, and about brain processing power.

I would suggest that you go back and listen to the clip that he, that clip, in context of what he was saying. He clearly said what he said, and I guess because of political ideology or because of bias, people are trying to interpret it and make it into something else. That is not what he said, okay? He was very clear about the brain processing or lack of brain processing power for black

women or for those black women.

With Charlie Kirk's death, a lot of people on the left have come out gleefully celebrating what happened. A lot of people have been posting stuff on social media, very happy. And they've turned out to be teachers, professors, doctors, nurses, people in extraordinary positions of power over other human beings. What should happen to those people?

Well, I think that we should look at every circumstances. It should be taken on their, the circumstances should be taken on their own merit and what should happen to them should be taken, you know, on individual merit. We should look at each of them. Now, I don't believe that anyone should be celebrating

anybody's death at all, ever. And I don't think anyone should be celebrating anybody's death at all, ever, and I don't think anyone should be celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. We know, and you know, peers, that freedom of speech does come with consequences, and there are limits, there are limitations to freedom of speech,

and if you work for a private company, they have the right to fire you or discipline you for whatever it is that they want. If you break the rules, their codes of conduct, then you have to suffer the circumstances. So look, I 100% unequivocally believe

that no one should be celebrating anything. And if any of those people broke the rules of their employer, their codes of conduct, then they should be disciplined or fired if it warrants it.

Do you agree-

But I don't believe in canceling people. Right. I think there's a lot of cancellation going on on the right right now and I'm not comfortable with it. I wasn't comfortable with it on the left either.

Do you feel you were a victim of cancel culture at CNN?

I probably, I don't think, I look at everything as an opportunity. Probably yes. I'm sure that I was a victim of cancel culture but I would say mostly on the right for cancel culture. For those who don't know

what I'm talking about this is what led to you leaving CNN. Let's take a look at

the clip. She says people you know politicians or something are not in their prime. Nikki Haley isn't in her prime. Sorry. When a woman is considered being her prime in her 20s and 30s and maybe 40s. What are you talking, wait. That's not according to me. Prime for what? It depends, I mean, it's just like prime, if you look it up, it'll say, if you Google, when is a woman in her prime,

it'll say 20s, 30s and 40s.

I don't necessarily. 40s, oh, I got it.

Another decade. I agree with that. When you watch that, Don, I happened to be watching that live and I was like, well, what did he say? Do you I mean if you had a do-over Would you say that again? I mean what led you to say that?

Let me just say this I'm gonna answer your question But just so the audience knows and I hope you don't cut this out When I ask you what subjects you wanted to talk about, you know what you said to me? You said I want to talk to talk about? You know what you said to me? You said, I want to talk to you about freedom of speech in America and the response to Charlie Kirk's death.

Not once did you mention that we were gonna talk about CNN or whatever. So, and had I known that, I probably wouldn't have accepted this interview. This is a view that you have invited me on many times and I tell you, Piers, I know you. I would come on your show, but I don't do panels. And so when you said, I'm not going to be involved in a panel,

I agreed to come on your show, but I thought you would also stick by the subjects that you told me that you were going to talk about. Just to be clear, don't try to ambush me with something.

Don, just to be clear, you and I haven't, well, don, just to be clear,

you and I haven't had Piers, in a restaurant and I said, hey, Piers, good to see you. I would come on your show, but I don't do panels. And I said the same thing to your bookers. There's only one of you. And so when I asked you, and right, OK, and so yes, and I said, that's why I agreed to do it.

But when you asked me or when your team asked CNN mentioned, so I don't appreciate being ambushed But let me answer your question

Hang on one second. Let's just be crystal clear about what's just happened. You brought up the subject of cancel culture I asked you did you feel your departure from CNN was an example of that and you answered the question I think it's perfectly reasonable answer the questionly reasonable in that if you said to me I don't want to talk about it, fine.

I'm not so sorry. That is completely disingenuous. Don, we don't edit. I don't like arguing like this. I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Piers, I think that's completely disingenuous. And I think anyone watching that, this will know. What are you talking about? And so if you will let me, if you will allow me, please,

please stop interrupting me.

OK? Did you invite me here to interrupt me? Or are you going to let me answer the question?

I think you're being a complete dick if I'm honest with you.

OK.

I do.

Well, that's very kind and respectful of you. I could respond in kind but I won't because I think that I am above that. I'm not going to do that, Piers. That's not who I am.

I don't understand why you're playing the victim card when you yourself mention cancel culture.

Because, Piers, oh my gosh. Okay, hold on. Let me just say, let me do this. What are you going to do? Read out your the team messages to you because I just think it's completely unfair and you know that Can you I'm prepared to answer your question and then I'm gonna move on I told you I'm prepared to talk about Charlie Kirk's death the response to it and Can't and cancel culture and that's not sorry and freedom of the press so freedom of speech You were prepared to talk about cancel You were unless you

Know I'm not

Culture but that has oh my god Pierce. Could you stop interrupting me? No, really? You're kind of exhausting me something ridiculous

Why would you react this way to a perfectly normal, obviously if you mention cancel culture, obviously it's rational and logical that I would ask you whether you felt what happened to you at CNN was that. I play the clip and then you throw a hickey fit.

Pierce, I've given you a moment, enough. I've given you your moment. I don't want a moment. This is going to go viral, so please enough. I don't want you'll take lectures on being a respectful journalist. Because you want a moment. Oh my gosh, Piers.

I won't. I can't even hear because there's a delay and you keep talking and I mean, what do you want me to do? Like rip the earpiece out and the mic and run off so you have a moment?

No, I don't care. you've gone on this weird rant. I don't understand any of it. Why have you done this weird reaction? I simply asked you about whether you felt your departure from CNN was, in your eyes, an example of cancel culture.

I played the clip and I then said, when you watch it back, do you really understand what you were saying? This is why I don't do this but you're embarrassing yourself Piers. Actually you might be embarrassing yourself. Oh my god okay.

Yeah you might be have you thought of that?

Okay.

You're a journalist you don't want to talk about a story a massive story that involved you.

Piers can we move on you let me answer the question then we can talk about the things that you invited me on.

Sure, why don't you just answer the question to start with?

And we've gotten so far away from what you wanted me to answer that we're off into la-la land. So let me just, let me say something about that. The clip that you played had nothing to do with me leaving CNN, okay? And if you, unless you know something that I don't know about me leaving CNN Then you should tell me about it had nothing to do. I worked there for months after that

So that had nothing to do with it And so, you know, I forget the the other thing that you were asking me about in that clip

But I asked you when you watch the clip back. Well, if you could explain what was going through your mind, that's all

Thank you I Thank you. I think the key phrases in that clip, if you want to be honest, and I want you to listen to it, is that I'm not saying that I believe that. That's not according to me. What I'm speaking for, what I was speaking for there is how society treats women. And someone like Nikki Haley should know, women have been discriminated against for

centuries. She should be more careful than to say something that discriminates against older people, that's it. And so people took that out of context. No one puts in the, whenever they write about it, that I said, I'm not saying that, I don't believe that.

I said that very clearly there. So that is not the reason that I was let go from CNN. And so again, unless you know something, then, you know, then you know go ahead. As you know it was widely reported that was. So what was the reason? Don't believe everything you read. What was the reason? I don't know. You don't

know? No. But it all happened after that incident you know that? Yeah well Pierce

everything happens after something I don't understand what your point is. My point is I think it's quite newsworthy

if you say it had nothing to do with that then it'll raise the obvious

question. I don't think it's newsworthy Piers that was that was three years ago right three it's not newsworthy that news means something that's new this isn't new right that was three years ago.

It's the first time.

If you want to find out about it, you are free to be able to read the interviews that I've read. You are free to read the statement that I, if you, I mean, perhaps your folks should pull up the statement when I left CNN and that can explain to you what happened. So this is nothing new. You just told me you've no idea why you were let go. I'm doing something completely different and so that's that. Rob you just said you've no idea why they got rid of you.

I did. So how do you know it wasn't to do with the clip we just played?

I just said that. I just said. I just answered your question. Now what else do you want to talk about? What do you want to talk about Dom?

The subjects that you invited me on to discuss, Piers. I thought that included free speech and everything around that.

I know you're loving this viral moment, I just think that you're embarrassing yourself in this moment.

I don't think you understand me at all. I've got nothing against you at all. Never have had. I was perfectly...

Piers, you think I don't understand you? Piers, I worked with you for years. I know more about you probably than most people who are watching this program and most people, a lot of the people who are working with you.

Right. Why would I-

I worked with your staff. I inherited, hang on, I inherited your staff at CNN. I know way more about you than I would care to know. I know way more about how you do business and how you approach journalism, then I care to know. I have not been on anyone else's show. I don't want to be on anybody's show. I don't want to do panel shows.

I don't want to argue with people about things that are inconsequential. What we should be talking about right now is how to keep what happened to Charlie Kirk from happening to anybody else. That's where the conversation should be.

But instead, you're trying to get a moment you're trying to make some news out of something but go ahead have your fun but we should be discussing something that is productive to the American people instead of something instead of you going into the garbage and trying to find something that will you know give you a moment or that you will you know get a click out of it or more viewers for your program.

You sound very bitter Dom.

Piers are you kidding me? No.

Bitter, I'm like, I'm the happiest go lucky person ever. I'm just exposing your hypocrisy and how you lied to me about what you wanted to discuss.

I've never talked to you about this interview at all.

You don't, then you don't have conversations with your producers? So your producers lied to me or you don't then you don't have conversations with your producers. So your producers lied to me or you don't you're not that even missing one of the subjects. You're not that editorial

process of your own show to where they don't convey to you your own admission what you are you know what the guest is going to what the guest is going to talk about on the program. You

obviously expected some that involved in the editorial process of your own show that you don't know that?

You've already admitted that one of the subjects was free speech and yet here you are getting enraged about me exercising my right to free speech to ask you a few questions.

I'm not enraged, I'm not enraged at all. I think this is kind of funny I'm not enraged at all. I think this is kind of funny. I'm not enraged at all. I mean, it's kind of exactly what I thought, like, hey, I don't want to go on the Piers Morgan show because of the spectacle of it all. And so that's confirmation of that. But I'm glad you got this moment.

This is a moment for me as well that's going to play out on social media. to be good for me too, so go for it. What moment do you think we've got? Piers, come on. Come on, I don't know what you mean. Come on, let's do something that's more productive than this. Honestly, when you do

this, when you say that I'm into journalism, you do this, or like it's not journalism, you've taken a big, big, big high moral ground. Hang on, hang on

I'll ask you a question. I am taking a moral high ground. You should know better than anyone where this conversation should be going especially since you you understand what happened at CNN with you. I was about gun control in the United States. Yeah. That was that that was a big thing for you when you were at CNN and I'm not sure what happened if that was part of the reason that you were let go,

but you know, hey, Pierce, this is Don Lemon. I know you, I've worked with you, I know a lot about you. So let's just move on and be adults. And so let's talk about, I think, something that would be important to you, and that is sensible gun legislation in the United States that would have perhaps prevented the untimely and sad death of Charlie Kirk.

Can we do that?

How would it have prevented it happening?

Why don't you tell me? Because you are an expert on the subject, at least you were when you were working at CNN. You were very pro-gun legislation and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, pro-gun control.

I don't understand how you stop a deranged young man who the investigators say has become a radicalized to the left from taking his grandfather's old rifle and using it to fire one bullet that kills Charlie Kirk. If you can think of a legislation that

would stop that. I think you just answered that. You said your grandfather's, your grandfather's old rifle. So look, perhaps it should have been in a safer place. Do you know where it was? There should be rules, hang on, there should be rules as it relates to people, young people in the house who can have possession of guns. There are a whole lot of things that we can talk about

as it relates to sensible gun control and rules and laws around guns. And so, you know, I don't know the circumstances in his home. I just, I do know that it was a conservative MAGA family, a gun loving family.

And so perhaps if we didn't have more guns than people in the United States and our gun laws weren't so lax, perhaps we could prevent a whole lot of these deaths. You know, you're in the UK, all over Europe, all over different continents and different countries in the world. Everybody has mental health issues. Everyone has problems.

But you know what they don't have? As easy access to guns as Americans do, and as many guns as Americans do. And so that is the only difference in this. And so to me and to most sensible people in this country and all over the world,

it seems to us and me that perhaps if we got a handle on that, we too could be like England. We too could be like Ireland. We too could be like Italy. We too could be like even countries that are not a part of Europe.

We too could be that way and not have so many senseless gun deaths. Alright. And do you think that one of the reasons why this shooter killed Charlie Kirk was because he didn't like his opinions?

If, um, if what law enforcement said about if the text messages are, if that all comes out in evidence and they are true, then yeah, I think he's given his reasons. I think he gave the reasons. He didn't like what Charlie Kirk stood for. He didn't like what he said.

I don't believe that's a reason to kill anybody or shoot anyone, but if this is true, he has admitted to that. Okay, and finally, Don, we started this, just to be fair you said you don't like the way that the MAGA crowd have reacted to Charlie Kirk because they're doing it just for clicks and stuff about somebody's death and yet my team... Some of them not I said some of them okay some of them not all of them which ones in particular are you thinking of?

well if you go back if you go back and watch the Don Lemon show on YouTube or if you watch Don Lemon on social media you will find I mentioned certain people and you can you can find

it there. So you object to clickbaity headlines about people and death? Do I object to what? Click baiting headlines about people and death. Not necessarily I

think that's part of our culture I think it's part of our culture. I think it's part of our culture and I think it's a byproduct of our siloed media. And I think people perhaps sometimes do it to get attention, whether it's right or whether it's wrong, but sometimes people do it to break through whether that's right or wrong. It's just simply what it is. That's a matter of fact. Sure, but do you ever do it to break through whether that's right or wrong it's just simply what it is. Do you ever do it? I don't think I do it to any more so than anyone else I don't think I do it any more so than the Piers Morgan

show or any other show that is based on YouTube. I'm only curious because two weeks ago you had a headline. You have to do something that. Two weeks ago. I'm not done talking yet, Piers. I'm not done talking yet, Piers. I didn't finish my statement. I say sometimes you have to do things to get people's attention so that they can click

on something and to see if it is important or not and they can make up their own decision about if they want to continue on with the content.

Got it. I got it. Yeah, you had a headline two weeks ago, hot takes. Could Donald Trump be dying?

Yeah, a lot of folks did. I think you probably did a show on that as well.

No, I didn't.

And because people were asking, if you look, if you look at it, even in some of the mainstream media, people are asking Donald Trump's administration was not transparent about how sick he was during Covid. And so what and so what leads people to believe that Donald Trump's administration

is going to be transparent about what's happening with him now, about what's happening with his hands, about what's happening with his ankles, about what's happening with his health? He is the leader of the free world. People have the right, especially Americans,

to know the health of their president.

He wasn't dying. You knew he wasn't dying, he's obviously not dying and he was doing it for clickbait.

I didn't say he was dying, I said could Donald Trump be dying because people are asking if he's dying. Got it, got it. I don't see that there's anything wrong with that.

Nope. Don Lemon, thank you very much. Do you? We run out of time Don, you know what it's like in the news business. Yeah, thank you, Piers. Thanks for coming on Uncensored. 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. 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 Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.