The full transcript

I will invoke my right under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.

I think we would have found out today whether he created the virus and killed people if he hadn't taken the 5th.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-113

How'd that meeting go?

It was great. It was one of the best meetings that we've had.

That might be the only thing he's ever said that I believe.

They would happily kill every American. What's your strategy for victory? They would happily kill you as well.

If there's one thing that this war has done in a very short period of time, it has united Iranians inside the country.

Zelensky and Netanyahu traveled to D.C. for the funeral of Senator Lindsey Graham, at least officially. In reality, they were both here to see President Trump. And the unofficial summit provided a historic snapshot of a world in turmoil, which is convulsing in ways that nobody can predict. Just last year, the Ukrainian president was humiliated by Trump over a war he said he'd end in 24 hours. Just 5 months ago, the Israeli prime minister was hailed a hero as he led the US into a war that was supposed to last 3 weeks. Now Zelensky's on the rise. The US needs Ukraine's help to fight Iran. Netanyahu, on the other hand, landed in a country where almost half of the people in a new poll think he should be arrested for war crimes. He came prepared with one of his dodgy dossiers. New satellite footage of nuclear facilities being rebuilt near Iran's Pickaxe Mountain. This time, Trump, well, he was having none of it.

Well, I don't need Bibi to tell me that. Bibi is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved. I mean, I don't necessarily— we have the finest because of Space Force. We have the greatest cameras in the world focused. We know exactly what's going on. But now I heard Bibi announce that. I said, why don't you just tell it to me? Why do you have to announce it to the world? I know exactly what's going on at Pickax. It's not a big problem.

Well, the Israeli prime minister is fighting for his political life. He needs to convince his own people that he's the only one who can keep Trump onside. Watch his response to how that's going and judge for yourself whether you believe him.

How'd that meeting go?

It was great. It was one of the best meetings that we've had. And I always, you know, I always hate to disappoint. Our would-be critics who are trying to find, you know, cracks in our alliance, and what they find, like today, is a wall of granite. Because the president is so clear. I mean, he's so—we have a common commitment. We don't want to see this fanatic regime in Tehran have nuclear weapons to threaten every American and to threaten the peace of the world.

Well, whatever your views on the Iran war, there is nobody less qualified on planet Earth to be talking about world peace. Iran fired missiles at a US base in Jordan overnight. The world awaits Trump's response to that. Peace no longer looks like an option. Well, joining us now to discuss all this is Jonathan Conricus, the senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer and author of the new book, The Ultimate Guide to CIA Skills, Tactics, and Techniques; Scott Horton, host of the Scott Horton Show, and Jim Hansen, the chief strategist, Middle East Forum. Welcome to all of you. Scott Horton, it looks pretty clear the longer this war goes on that it's become the very thing that Donald Trump always said he hated most, which is a protracted war in the Middle East costing a huge amount of money, costing American lives, and it seems to have no end in sight. Netanyahu's now in Washington, but Trump's rhetoric seems to suggest that the wool is being pulled off his eyes, if you like, in relation to the veracity of what Netanyahu's saying about the war and where it is and what can be achieved. Do you think we're heading inexorably to a moment where Trump parts company completely with the Israelis on this?

Oh, I wish. I hate to say, Piers, that in that clip of Netanyahu that you played there, that might be the only thing he's ever said that I believe, that he and Trump are good friends and they get along just fine and they agree completely on what they're doing. And, you know, Trump's very marginal complaints about the way that Netanyahu approaches public relations are essentially meaningless here. You know, Netanyahu is a psychopath, but he ain't schizophrenic. He understands the facts of life just as well as Donald Trump does. As we can all read in the Wall Street Journal, it was the commander of CENTCOM and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that told Trump late last week, don't do this escalation, which he'd been planning, this major escalation. They told him, don't do it because we can't contain it. We're going to have more dead Americans. We— they got more interceptors than we've got interceptors, Mr. President. So stop. And Netanyahu understands that exact same math as relayed to him by his American liaisons, including the president, that they have no options here. That's why they called it off over the weekend. That's why Trump called the war off back last April. And so the problem, the only real problem is the politics of it. How does Trump back out of a war that he already lost and make it look somewhat okay? And be forgiven. And I'm here to go back to endorse what Joe Kent said at the very beginning, which is just cut and run, just turn around and leave. We've got nothing to lose. And that shifts the entire burden of dealing with the rest of Eurasia onto Iran about how they're going to handle the Persian Gulf from now on. It really doesn't matter to the American people. It doesn't even really matter to the American empire whether we lose dominance in that Gulf. We— the American empire was perfectly healthy before Jimmy Carter declared his doctrine in 1980. We'll be just fine without it now. But the problem is, if we want a comprehensive negotiated solution, that's just too many boxes that have to be checked. It can't be done. Trump is not willing to concede, even after he signed that MOU. He's not willing to seal the deal and finish it because it's too much of a personal humiliation for him and his politics. So I agree with Joe Kent that the easier answer is to just forget it. Just say, you know what, forget that whole thing ever happened. That was the old me. This is the new me. And just go on. And honestly, what would it cost the American people to finally have peace?

Yeah, I mean, Jonathan Cornick, you're shaking your head there. I've got to say, I completely agree. If I was advising Donald Trump right now, I would say from the American national interest, Get the hell out of this before it gets immeasurably worse. The problem, as it has been evident to everyone from the start of this, is that the Iranians very quickly worked out that all they've got to do is control the Strait of Hormuz and fire off missiles and rockets at their neighboring Gulf states, and they can hold the entire global energy market literally over a barrel. And they keep doing that with impunity. You know, I woke up this morning to Donald Trump saying he's going to Unleash fucking shit or hell or whatever it was, his normal very inflammatory abusive language. And it's like, well, the Iranians have been hearing this for four or five months. So what are you going to do? Right? You keep threatening to annihilate them one day, deal with them the next. There's this daily ridiculous dialogue almost with himself. And I know Trump well, and I'm seeing a guy who wants to get out of this desperately. Can't work out a way to do it that saves face, and actually Scott's right. Don't worry about saving face; just get the hell out of it. Your thoughts?

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-014

Yeah, my obviously not surprisingly my thoughts differ. I think that it would be very damaging for American standing. I think it would be damaging for what was referenced as the American Empire. I think that weakness in one area is quickly. Seen and understood by enemies all around the world. And if you're weak in one area, you are deemed to be weak in another area as well. And I know this from, you know, from the local microenvironment of the Middle East where we fight various enemies. If we are perceived as weak by one of our enemies, then the others will perceive us as weak as well, even if we aren't. The test case of Hamas versus Hezbollah. We were weak and unprepared to fight. And, you know, we had these whole paradigms of thought that were very defeatist and sounded very similar to the points that were made just a few minutes ago. And the enemies heard that, saw that, took notice, and they used it against us. And then the other enemies thought that, well, maybe we'll have a go at Israel as well. And Hezbollah went and the Iranians went and many others. The point here is that yes, of course, wars are horrible. People die in wars. I have fought. I don't know who else on the panel has been in uniform and put themselves in harm's way, but I have fought for my country, and Israelis continue to fight for their country. Not asking anybody to fight for us, unlike many other American allies who ask for Americans to be deployed in their countries. We don't. And with the current situation here, I think that it would be. Actually humiliating for the U.S. to do such a childish and immature and you know Barbie-like kind of thing to say well enough and I'm just going home let's forget about it have you ever heard of a leader say such a thing without thinking about the serious long-term consequences for the projection of force deterrence think what the what what will the Chinese say well of course the Chinese will have levers of influence over the U.S. as well whether it's energy chips manufacturing rare earth minerals and many other things. It'll hurt to confront the Chinese as well. It'll hurt to confront the Russians as well. So what if you believe in something? If you listen to your enemy, and the Iranian regime is an enemy of the United States of America, they would happily kill every American. Let's just live with it. They would happily kill you as well if they had the opportunity to do so. This my strategy?

That's a very important question, Jonathan. No, no, no. I'll tell you what it is. A what? What is victory? Because if victory is supposedly preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, I would say it is far more likely. Well, hang on. Well, that's what Donald Trump has said. That's what Donald Trump has said. Right. So let me just remind you what the president of the United States has said is the stated mission. Right? Is to stop them developing a weapon. Now, last— well, hang on, Jonathan. Hang on. Hang on. Last time I checked, they still have control of all their enriched uranium. They are— if we are to believe that just 8 months after the 12-day war, where we supposedly put them back decades in their nuclear program, they were 2 weeks away from developing one and potentially using it immediately, then presumably that threat still applies. Now you've got the Americans saying to the Saudi Arabians, you can have a nuclear weapon if you join the Abraham Accords. If you're Iran, you can have enriched uranium. What is stopping you now? Energy? No, no. Nuclear energy is the same argument. It's the same. It's the same. It's the same argument about Iran. Iran says that's what they want, the enriched uranium. It isn't. And you guys come on, be serious.

You can't compare the sun to the Iranian regime.

It is.

It isn't.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-018

It is the same argument.

Let's be serious.

My point is this.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Jonathan Conricus

No, let's be serious.

My point is this, Jonathan.

You can't compare them.

My point is that— wait a minute. Let me make my point. My point is, if you're the Iranian regime and you see all this going on and you know that 4 and a half months into this war, you still have the regime intact, the Ayatollah has been replaced by his son, the IRGC are in full control, your people aren't rising up. and you control the Strait of Hormuz, and you're causing devastating damage to the neighboring Gulf states by firing off missiles directly impacting their business model going forward. If you're aware of all these facts and you've got all your enriched uranium and the president of the United States is saying to the Saudi Arabians, you can basically have what the Iranians have, why on earth would you have any incentive to end this?

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-017

So, I'll briefly just, you know, say this. The Iranian— there's a 90% inflation in Iran. Their currency is plummeting. They don't have money. There's growing unrest on Iranian streets, which isn't reported in Western media because they don't allow it to be reported. And the only thing that I think, you know, should have been done better by the president in the management of this war isn't the fact that he launched the war together. I think that is exactly what the president of the United States should have done. The only thing that I regret is that he had very odd bedfellows. Whether it's Turkey, Qatar, or Pakistan, that I think have given him very poor advice. And that is a shame, because if he hadn't called off various plans that were in motion, then I think we could have been in a different situation. If he'd listened to other countries like the Emirates, like Israel, like Jordan, like other countries, and not to basically Muslim Brotherhood countries like Qatar and Turkey, then I think the situation could have been much better. And up and the situation would have been much better and the Iranian regime would have been brought to their knees. And finally, about victory.

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-018

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Scott Horton

+1.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Jonathan Conricus · low confidence: excluded from score

This is so much hot air.

Why don't you say how we're going to open that strait with force without losing our ships to the bottom of the Gulf? What I'm saying is victory against the Iranian regime. Scott Horton wants a strategy.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-017

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-006

All right, let's get to it. I've got a strategy. All right, you want a strategy? We tried negotiation. We tried negotiation. President Trump did the right thing. The right thing was try to find a way to end this with the least amount of kinetic energy and damage that you could put forth. Okay, it didn't work. The enemy gets a vote. They figured out that their asymmetric threats to both the Strait of Hormuz and now the Bab-el-Mandeb are enough to shut down the global economy and oil in a way that we could not sustain, and for a short time they could. So now he has to deal with both US elections and what happens next. But the real problem is the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it's time to quit tap dancing around the fact that it is well past its expiration date, and it's time to tell the world they need to move on. The Iranian people and the rest of the world deserve something better. So what we need is Operation Epic Finale, and we need to do it like the end of that fireworks display on the 4th of July here in DC, where we barraged everything, kill as many of the IRGC leaders, 'cause they're the problem, as you can, and CIA and Mossad know where a lot of them are, crush them hard immediately, and then say, we're gonna take a break until the US midterms are over. You can get your stuff together and surrender, or after the midterms, we move into a phase where we start degrading them and creating the conditions inside Iran for the people of Iran to choose their own government. call for a national referendum where international observers come in and let the people decide whether they want to continue this revolution that has caused nothing but death and destruction for them for all these years and replace that with something that turns them back into a prosperous and decent nation and member of the community of nations. That's a plan.

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-014

With all due respect, I don't know you.

With all due respect, sir, isn't that exactly how this war started? By killing all the IRGC, killing the Ayatollah, telling the people to rise up.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Scott Horton · ruling prints at U-035

And we said we're not doing regime change, we're going to negotiate. No, the difference is you call an end to any of this. We can make a deal with an apocalyptic death cult that believes they need an Armageddon-like event to bring the return of the 13th Imam.

That's what you're saying is make them surrender through power, right?

No, I'm saying make them surrender, beat them down as far as we can, then take a break. Then bring back the blockade. Bring back international pressure.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-031

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Jim Hanson · ruling prints at U-034

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Jim Hanson · ruling prints at U-031

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Jim Hanson · ruling prints at U-031

Jim, all due respect. Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim. Here's the problem. Jim, Jim. Hang on, hang on. Go, Jim. Jim, hang on, hang on, Scott. Hang on, Scott. Jim, all due respect. This is exactly what's been going on for the last four and a half months. I mean, let me bring in John Kiriakou. Welcome back to Uncensored. But it seems to me the Americans and Israelis threw the kitchen sink at trying to blow up. the IRGC and the Iranian leadership. Then they tried a blockade and they've done all these things. None of it's worked. And guess what? You can't deal with the Iranians. Well, I could have told them that before they started. The great big elephant in the room here turned out— So why deal with them? Well, you have to deal with them. Obama, over 2 years, got a deal that the Republicans condemned as terrible, but actually has turned out to be probably better at the moment than any of the deals that Trump's put in front of the Iranians. So we are back, further back than we were before a deal that was at least ostensibly holding in place in some form with a very dangerous, horrible regime. I don't dispute that for a minute. But John Kiriakou, you know, my problem with this is, and again, full respect to Jim, and I love having him on the show, as I do all my guests. But the bottom line is Americans have tried everything here. And none of it's worked. And last time I looked, the Americans have a missile problem, right? They're running out of defensive missiles against the Iranian ballistic missiles. I was told on very good authority last week that the Iranians still have at least 50% of their ballistic missile capability left, and they're regenerating as they go. I was told this by somebody who would know. The Americans clearly have a defensive missile issue. And the neighboring Gulf states, some of them are in big trouble. You look at the smaller ones like Kuwait and Bahrain and others, they are getting really, really jittery about what may happen in those smaller states. And I don't blame them. So my argument, John, is I've heard all this rhetoric. None of it's worked.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-033

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Piers Morgan · ruling prints at U-028

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground · Piers Morgan

No, none of this works. And this is an ongoing problem that we've seen stretch over the course of decades. I saw it at the CIA. It's easy to invade a country. It's easy to kill the leadership, but it's almost impossible to come up with an exit strategy that works. And we never think these things through. There's never an exit strategy. We always think that we're going to be greeted as liberators, and we're never greeted as liberators. We're greeted as invaders and occupiers. If there's one thing that this war has done in a very short period of time, It has united Iranians inside the country against the United States, Israel, and the Gulf countries.

+4 R-2.2 · Attacking the opponent's role rather than his point · Jonathan Conricus

No, it hasn't.

The Iranians have to get away with it.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Jonathan Conricus

You don't know that, and it hasn't.

That's it. That's all they have to get away with.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on John Kiriakou · ruling prints at U-040

You don't know that, and it hasn't. And you can look at the amount of executions by the Iranian regime, including yesterday and the day before yesterday. Public hangings.

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-039

You can see how united they are.

According to US sources.

↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Jim Hanson · ruling prints at U-031

The only thing that they are united against is against the horrible regime that oppresses them. And the fact that you are doing their work and strengthening the propaganda.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-043

↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-039

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-039

Jonathan, if that's the case, Jonathan, hang on, hang on. Jonathan, if that's the case, why is it that Israel has never been more unpopular, particularly in America, where two-thirds of Americans now have a negative view of Israel? 50% of Americans nearly want Netanyahu arrested on American soil. So you can talk about The Iranians and how everyone's united against them and so on. Actually, what is happening, and I say this as somebody who likes Israel, likes Israelis, hates to see this happening, but your country is becoming increasingly a global pariah because of the actions of its government, which is, and those, that government is being driven by absolute psychopaths like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. And the more those guys do, and the appalling scenes we're seeing on the West Bank, for example, appalling scenes, right, which you should be the first to condemn. And I've always thought you try and be fair-minded when it's deserved, the criticism. So here's your chance to be fair-minded. Are you happy with what's happening in the West Bank?

Let's first address what you said first about, you know, Israel's standing in the world, which brings me great sadness as someone who has been in media for a while, not as long as you and maybe some of the other panelists, but I can smell an influence operation a mile away, and what I give credit to is our enemies, the Palestinian Authority, and a few others: Qatar, lots of Qatari money, Russians, and Iran for a very successful information campaign against Israel. They have been more successful information-wise than what we have been on the battlefield, and we have taken out Hezbollah. We've taken out Hamas. We have dealt significant blows to the Iranian regime. We have— I didn't interrupt you.

We have taken out significant portions of our enemies on the ground.

But unfortunately, what the Jewish country, what the Jewish state faces is unprecedented inequalities unique in the world. The amount of attention, scrutiny, and double standards that are faced against Israel.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-048

Yeah, but Jonathan, Jonathan, what the— what Israel, the Jewish state as you call it, what Israel through its action, through its government's actions, and I say that very precisely, through this current government's actions, it is that that's made Israel an increasing pariah. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. I don't get told— I don't— I— well, how is somebody like me, for example, who for many months after October the 7th ran into all sorts of abuse from the pro-Palestinian side because I defended Israel's right to defend itself. But I kept asking as I did that, what is a proportionate response? And you lost me when the response reached nearly 80,000 deaths in Gaza. Then we saw the attacks on southern Lebanon, on Iran, on this and that. You're in perpetual state of warfare. And the rest of the world's watching this going, you keep saying you're the victims here, but you keep attacking places and killing endless civilians. And you keep saying, well, we don't mean to, we're only after the bad guys. But in the process of killing the bad guys, you are killing tens and tens of thousands of innocent people. And the rest of the world's watching this going, enough. Now, Jonathan, that is not PR. No one's paying me to say this. It is what I'm seeing with my own eyes.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-047

+7.5 R-2.3 · Appeal to authority in place of argument · Jonathan Conricus

Okay, after that, give me a chance to respond to that because you really laid out so many things that are, at least I have, you know, 2 sentences to speak about it. Oh, there are all kinds of things. I suggest that you read the Substack of a British former army officer called Andrew Fox. I know he's maybe been on the, uh, on the show once and been in touch with the show. He just wrote a piece about the whole genocide libel falling to pieces, and he took each and every one of the components of the lies against Israel, specifically regarding Gaza. I don't— won't go into all of the details, but I suggest that you read it and that you inform yourself. And if you ask, how have you fallen? Because you have also been influenced by this massive media operation against Israel. It is a media operation that I think no other country has seen.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-048

Well, if you want me to be better informed, if you want me to be better informed, hang on, Jonathan. If you want me to, If you hang on, Scott. If you want me to be better informed, Jonathan, then let let the international journalists into Gaza to do their job and find out for themselves. Let them do it. There's a reason Netanyahu doesn't want it to happen and is prohibiting journalists from going in there. There's lots of reporters in Gaza. Like Andrew Fox. There's lots of reporters. And there is no independent free reporting in Gaza. Yes, there is. Zero. Yes, there is. You banned all international media.

Reuters.

We journalists got in freely with that IDF embedment.

Washington Post and AFP all have correspondents on the ground reporting from Gaza. Yes, check their bylines. All of these are reporting from Gaza daily. They have been reporting since October 7th. What you say is factually incorrect.

So there is no ban, just to be clear. Wow, wow, hang on, you yourself In previous interviews on this show, have admitted there is a ban on international media, and it should be stopped.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-053

I have said that there haven't been any international correspondents since October the seventh.

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-056

They've all been there. Which one is it?

I'll tell you very clearly: CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and AFP, and Reuters all have staff on the ground, and they have been reporting. Gazan reporters who work for those agencies, and of course Al Jazeera as well. I forgot. the Qatari—

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-056

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-056

So just to be clear, just to be clear, just to be clear, I thought, I thought, sorry, I thought, I thought that the narrative coming out of Gaza with Gazan journalists was they were all pro-Hamas. That's why 200-plus have been killed and they're all pro-Hamas. Therefore, they're not actual journalists. Now, your position is that the Gazan journalists are free, independent journalists and not Hamas. Is that your position? And secondly, there remains in place, as you know, Jonathan, a ban on all international media going into Gaza, non-Gazan journalists from outside going in to do their job. So when you say to me I should be better informed, I would love to be better informed.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-053

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Piers Morgan · ruling prints at U-057

Let the journalists go in and do their job. So let me inform you. You said about journalists. The international media. 267 journalists, according to international NGOs, have been reported killed, cited by various organizations that they were only journalists. Out of those, More than 125 have already been recognized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad as their own fighters. Now, where's the reporting on that? Where's the outrage of media organizations?

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-056

People like you. Where is the reporting on that?

Where is the reporting on that? It's insane.

Pierce, Pierce. Then the Jews will do the reporting. Let me give you a little information.

Information about why Pierce has spoken about Gaza.

Is there a genocide? Gaza talking about the voluntary emigration of the entire population. Of the Gaza Strip, that's the genocide the guy's sitting here denying to your face.

Voluntary immigration with a say in it. Women and children's sake, just steal their land. Which genocide?

Which genocide? The population is growing for Christ's sake.

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Scott Horton · ruling prints at U-089

The Gaza population is growing.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-092

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-068

Was there a genocide in solution? Let me bring in. Let's talk about it during the comparison here.

Don't all guys, guys, guys, time out. Don't all talk at once. We can't hear you. Let me bring Jim back in here, Jim. Look, I— go on, you want to say something?

Was there a genocide in Fallujah when the United States military was clearing that city in Iraq? Was there one in Al-Anbar when the same things were happening? But the amount of civilians killed per enemy combatant killed is lower in Gaza than it was when the United States was doing that. It's the same. It's the truth.

How do you know, Jim?

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-082

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Piers Morgan · ruling prints at U-080

Those are facts.

Jim, Jim, Jim.

Even if you take the Gaza Health Ministry, Facts.

Jim.

Go ahead.

Jim, respectfully, respectfully, Jim, how many civilians have died in Gaza? Because we can't get that number.

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-082

Nobody knows for sure because we're taking health ministry. But take that, take the Gaza Health Ministry. So how do you know the ratio?

So how do you know, how do you know, Jim, the ratio is the best in modern times?

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Piers Morgan · ruling prints at U-080

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged the casualty figures are unknown · Jonathan Conricus · low confidence: excluded from score

Nobody knows.

I'm saying, no, we have the ratio is the best.

Take the worst-case scenario. Take the lies from the Gaza Health Ministry and do the math from there. On how many military-aged males were killed versus how many civilians and compare that to every other existence of urban combat of which we have direct comparisons, we can do the math and it's been done. What it says is that fewer people were killed in Gaza.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-073

↳ evidence for the P27 verdict on Jim Hanson · ruling prints at U-081

Let me bring in John. John, your response to that? The most moral army in the world.

We're ignoring the fact here that the internationally recognized definition of genocide includes the forced removal of people. You don't have to execute people for it to be a genocide. Forcibly removing a civilian population is a legal definition of genocide. And that's been announced not just by Benjamin Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, but by Donald Trump himself. Remember, he was going to make Gaza into the next Monte Carlo? No, better than Monte Carlo.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-067

That's genocide.

That's cold-blooded genocide.

What you're doing now is keeping people safe.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-092

They moved them out of the way so they wouldn't be killed.

That's moving them out of the way and keeping them safer so that Hamas won't use them as human shields. You call that genocide? I call you an extremely cruel person.

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: 'extremely cruel person' · Jonathan Conricus

At some level, the Gazans don't even have the right to the territory. They got it as a gift from Israel.

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Jim Hanson · ruling prints at U-090

Sure.

Just getting their people out of the way.

Because it was Israel's gift. Why don't you see how you guys govern Gaza for your people. Hamas took control.

They turned it into a terrorist state, and we've seen what happens.

Why would Israel tolerate that? There's no reason for them to tolerate that.

But my argument, Jim, Jim, Jim, hang on, hang on, hang on. Don't all talk at once. Agree with him. I want to agree about Hamas.

Hamas is a terrible Islamist terrorist group. I'm not sitting here defending their side of the story here at all. However, it's so important to know, as I'm sure you must know, from great reporting from right-wing media like Richard Sale and UPI dating back to the 1980s, that the Israelis deliberately helped create Hamas and foisted Hamas on the people of Palestine. I have an article about it called Netanyahu's Support for Hamas Backfired, and it's about how Netanyahu, according to his own government ministers, was pressuring Qatar to pay Hamas to keep Hamas enthroned in Gaza just so they can say to Americans, You don't expect us to deal with these terrorists, do you? And as Netanyahu said repeatedly, and we have him on video saying repeatedly, don't worry, I control the height of the flame. In other words, yes, to divide and conquer the Palestinian people, Israel foists Hamas on the Palestinians.

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground: Hamas is a terrorist group · Scott Horton

But don't worry, they're not going to do anything. They foisted Hamas on themselves and then Netanyahu kept them going. I would agree that he kept them going. And it was a bad idea. Cutting the grass, bad idea.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-100

↳ evidence for the P28 verdict on Jonathan Conricus · ruling prints at U-100

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Netanyahu sustained Hamas · Jim Hanson

All of the liberal bad policy. All right, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me. Okay, guys, guys, you know what would be refreshing? Hang on, we've run out of— Jonathan, we've run out of time. I want to ask each of you to give a one-line answer to this. And I mean it. Don't go on a rant. We haven't got time. I'll have to cut it off. A one-line answer. And the question is very straightforward. When will this war in Iran end? And how does it end, Jonathan? One line.

It ends with the fall of the Iranian regime, with stability in the Middle East, with freedom for the Iranian people, and with peace between Iranians and Israelis. I don't know when, but I know that that will be the ultimate end of it.

Okay, John.

It ends on the last day of the Donald Trump presidency. with nothing having changed.

Scott?

It's already over. All that remains is the details. There might be fits and starts until the final deal, but they already called their own bluff in launching this idiot war, and they've already lost it.

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-014

And Jim, finally, you.

It ends when the people of Iran remove the Islamic Republic and replace it with a government representative of their needs And the world community should unite behind that idea, not a U.S. invasion, a force of will by all the free people of the world.

Okay, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you all for a fascinating debate. I really appreciate it. Thank you. In a moment, we'll get to the dramatic developments in the Iran war as Zelensky and Netanyahu both visit the White House and the president weighs up a major escalation. But we begin with the extraordinary hearings being taken place today in the Senate.

Although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions. Thank you.

Dr. Fauci was given a presidential pardon by President Biden, but many Republicans remain convinced that they can prosecute him. The probability of him being arrested this year has spiked from 4.5% to 13% on Polymarket. Is there a plan that we don't know about? Well, Peter Navarro is a counselor to the President of the United States. And he joins me now. Pete Navarro, welcome to Uncensored.

Piers, I called that shot this morning. I was on C-SPAN doing an interview just before the hearing, and I said that Fauci would invoke the Fifth. And the problem that Fauci has is that his public statements are so at odds with his diary that that man is guilty Of crimes, and he doesn't want to dig the hole any deeper. So I appreciate you, you having me on. I was the White House policy coordinator for the Defense Production Act during the pandemic. Right. What does that mean? I was the guy helping you to get masks and gloves and ventilators and swabs and all sorts of stuff.

Right.

And what's interesting is if you read Fauci's diary, Piers, my name appears almost 60 times. And Fauci attacks me continually in his diary. But what's interesting is the diary will show that on all 5 of the things that he and I disagreed with— and I was the only guy in that White House besides the president who've gotten Fauci's face. I was absolutely right. He was absolutely wrong. And Americans died because of the adulation that Fauci had from the American people and the inability to stop his runaway train. Watching him, watching him invoke the Fifth, you know, that's a long fall down from St. Fauci, Piers.

Well, it's a fascinating day because, of course, Fauci was given this pardon and that was up to the day that President Biden left office. The pardon covered the whole period before then, but it wouldn't have protected him if he committed perjury during the hearings today. He's clearly taken advice from his lawyers, as he said. Now, he's framing it as that Senator Rand Paul is obsessed with trying to prosecute me and therefore purely for legal reasons. I cannot cooperate today. I'm pleading the Fifth. Now that we've seen the diaries, which in itself is fascinating, the fact that we've even got to read these, because apparently he just did this on a government computer, therefore it's a matter of public record and so on, which does go to his judgment, I have to say. It's clear from the diaries, Peter Navarro, that Fauci comes over as a guy with a very big ego. You could say he's a narcissist. He loves being a celebrity. He boasts openly about how famous he is, the most famous person in the world. He name-checks endless celebrities from Barbra Streisand to Julia Roberts and so on. He loves meeting media people. So that's all indisputable. But for those who've not pored through all the diaries in the way that you will have done, what to you are the most damning contradictions between things he puts in the diaries and what he was saying in public at the time?

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-113

And this is why I'm so happy to be on your show, Piers, because the media has really dropped the ball on this. The left wing has ignored the story. The right-of-center media have focused on the narcissistic qualities of Fauci. But at the end of the day, the one big question is this: we know for a fact that Fauci funded research at the Wuhan lab where the virus almost certainly escaped from. We know that it was funded through the EcoHealth Alliance. We know that gain-of-function research was funded through that project, and gain-of-function research is what was used in Wuhan to take a harmless bat virus and Change, a gain in function, so it could be transmitted to humans. And we know that the reason why that was done in a Dr. Frankenstein way was to create this virus so that Fauci and company could create a vaccine in the contingency in case we got that virus. I mean, it's like insane. So the short answer to your question is— Yeah. If Fauci does not take the fifth, he is going to have to admit that he funded gain-of-research, gain-of-function research. And it's something that he ducked and lied about in earlier hearings that he could have been prosecuted for. He was asked that, and he basically spun it away from that. So that's, that's the smoking gun. And then once you establish that he funded the gain-of-research that created the virus that killed millions worldwide, then you begin to probe why he did it, whether he made money on the side with the vaccine people and all sorts of things like that. That is where he is most vulnerable. And Rand Paul has been trying to get that out of him. This place is special for me. I'm on the— what we call Pebble Beach at the White House, 50 yards away, Piers. The first time I met Fauci was in the Situation Room. He— I went head-to-head with him. I was saying we got to ban travel from China. He took the opposite position. I won that on behalf of President Trump. But then he would claim publicly that he always supported the ban. The diary contradicts that. In April, just down the way in a Fox tent and also on Meet the Press, I said that it was a near certainty that that virus was from the lab, not from nature. What the diary shows with Fauci is this: publicly, Fauci said it was from nature; privately, he acknowledged that it was likely. From the lab. That's a huge contradiction. Moreover, he orchestrated a cover using puppet researchers to propagate this from nature theory when the researchers themselves didn't even believe it. So that's an issue. On the lockdowns, again, I was here on the TV cameras saying that the lockdowns would likely kill more people. Than no lockdown because of things like suicide, depression, alcoholism, depriving people from getting adequate medical tests and things like that. And he was adamant about locking you and I up, taking away the right for people to gather together or go see, for example, my mother in her 90s when she was locked up in an assisted living place. So I was right about that. He was wrong. And then the mask thing. I was out getting masks, but the kind of masks that I was getting and building factories on were the N95. Those are the ones that for first responders, if you actually put them on, they help. These other kind of masks, I said from the get-go, no, no, no, no. But Fauci was like, he was like, you wear a mask, right?

You got to wear a mask.

So I think the point here, Piers, is that If you look at Tony Fauci as a man, he is essentially as Bernie Madoff is to investing. Fauci is the science. He has gone from famous to what should be infamous. And by the way, buried the lead here. This is now a key issue in the Senate and House races coming into November because every one of those Democrats at that hearing. Supported Tony Fauci unequivocally. How can they do that after reading the diary?

Okay. So let me just rein back a little bit here. The findings from the diaries, which I think are pertinent to what you've just been talking about, he talks about in an entry on January 26th, 2020, so right at the start of this, he says now we know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans. So that's significant because of the timing of that entry. 1st of February 2020, he said here there was not total agreement. Back a little bit.

Yeah, you got to go a little back because there's another entry where he was—

let me just finish and I'll come back to you, Peter. I'll come back. So in February 2020, 1st of February, so this is like a week later. He logged there was not total agreement regarding how the pandemic started. He noted that while 2 scientists believed it was natural, 9 other officials felt that deliberate insertion was possible and they could not let this go. Weighing the possibilities in later entries, he refined his position, writing he was almost certain that the virus evolved naturally from a species jump. And then in relation to keeping an open mind, he added he maintained an open mind about a potential lab leak, but cautioned that just because 2 alternatives are possible, that doesn't mean they are equally probable. Now, you know, what people will say in Fauci's defense is this is a guy who spent 50 years of his life in public health in the United States. He was a primary designer of the president's emergency plan for AIDS relief, which indisputably saved millions of lives. He uncovered how HIV destroys the human immune system and helped develop life-saving treatments. He guided the U.S. response to threats involving Ebola, Zika, the West Nile virus, and then COVID-19. This is not a man who's gone through his 5 decades of life as a public health official, I would argue from his history, deliberately trying to kill people. And yet you went on Fox this week and said this. Let me play a clip.

For for all the damages they did to their families and killing people and things like that, I mean, I don't think a pardon would prevent a class action suit against Fauci personally. He he needs to be held accountable. I mean, think about it, Maria. The guy's sitting in a mansion with millions of dollars, and and a lot of people in this country think this guy's a hero. He create he was Dr. Frankenstein. Stein of the modern era. He— this is, this is indisputable fact right now.

Yeah.

He created that virus using gain-of-function research. He did it for the express purpose— he thought it was like a good idea. Let's create the virus in case something happens in the future, so then we can create a vaccine. So if something happens in the future, we can deal with it. I mean, how did that work out, Anthony? idiot. You are— you are— you need to come clean, Fauci. Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, Fauci, you need to come clean, okay? Quit hiding behind your money and your laurels and your PBS documentaries. Come clean because you killed people.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-117

Now, my response to that, Peter, would be you're making— well, hang on one second. Let me ask you a question. You're making a number of assertions there. Not least that he somehow did all this deliberately and it ended up killing millions of people. Now, you know, there's no actual evidence for this. It's a supposition. You accept that?

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Fauci's intentions · Peter Navarro

When you say deliberately, let me say what I think without doubt, and the diary proves this, what he did deliberately. What he did deliberately Piers, is he conducted an experiment. The experiment was this: let's take a bat virus that can't go to humans, make it go transmissible to humans. Why do we want to do that? Because it could happen in the future. This is his thinking. Because it could, and therefore, if we do that, then we can develop a vaccine against it so that if it happens in the future, we'll already have the vaccine. That, that's indisputable. That's what happens. So he deliberately funded that research because of this experiment. He had good intentions. Let's say he had good intentions. He wanted to create a suite of vaccines for a future which may or may not Have happened, and what he didn't do, peers. And this is this is where he's culpable. He he didn't assume there could be a leak. He assumed you could conduct that experiment without any leaks, and it happened. And again, the diary is my best friend in terms of proving it. When the virus first comes out, he convenes all these scientists. They tell him there's a good chance. It came from the lab. He seems honest at the time, wanting to think more about that. But then later on in the diary, we see him scrambling to figure out whether his agency had anything to do with funding the gain-of-function research. And as soon as he finds that out, it's like, whoa, baby, it's time for the cover-up. And then, I mean, Piers, the biggest problem here is when you convene a bunch of scientists to write a paper that goes into respected journalism simply to make a from nature theory in order to cover up your culpability. Remember, Piers, we didn't know at any time during the whole pandemic that he had engaged in that research at the Wuhan lab. If I had known that during the pandemic, I would have been the first to call him out. And he would have been gone.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-117

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-117

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Peter Navarro · ruling prints at U-119

Okay, let's just turn quickly to the vaccines themselves. Sure. Do you think the vaccines were a good thing? Do you believe they saved many lives? Do you think the speed that they were created was a good positive thing?

I was involved with this at the very beginning. I think that that President Trump and we in the administration did the exact right thing in terms of seeking to develop at warp speed a vaccine. Where it went wrong was 2 things. One is the vaccine companies, particularly Pfizer, held crucial data from us that indicated the kind of side effects that could be associated. With the vaccine, the heart problems and the like. So we— and Fauci was part of that whole vaccine complex. So your answer is we did exactly what we should have, but Fauci and the vaccine companies didn't provide us with the appropriate data then to warn the people. The second thing is that vaccine never, ever should have been used on children. Or healthy people, college age and in their 20s and things like that. Never, ever. It was a super mistake. And that's one that got taken over by the whole ideology of the vaccine, because it would have been much better to let healthy people get the virus, develop the antibodies, and eventually we would develop herd immunity a lot faster. So that's a complex story.

Okay, you see what this whole idea— I get it, I get it. And it is, and it is complex. And, and, you know, one of the things I feel most incensed about, actually, in terms of the advisories that were given by the scientists, because I believed it, was when they said that if you had the vaccine, you couldn't transmit the virus. That was an enormous thing for the science world to tell the world. And Fauci was one of them that said this. And of course, I've said this Hang on, Peter. Hang on, Peter. And I have expressed regret many times for the fact I became very censorious to people who then refused to have the vaccine because I believed that they were risking other people's lives by not having it. Now, they then changed the science completely. They then said a few months later, actually, we can now say that it makes no difference whether you've had the vaccine or not as to whether you can transmit the virus. And at that point, To me, everything changed because then whether you have the vaccine or not should be obviously a personal decision because your decision will not impact on potentially other people's lives. So there were a number of things like that, like the use of masks. We were told originally you had to— they were going to be no good. Then everyone had to do them. And then, as you said, certain types of masks were better than others and so on. Now, again, playing devil's advocate here. If you're Fauci, and like all the health officials around the world, you're hit by this sudden pandemic, which is clearly killing a lot of people very quickly. I remember the scenes in Lombardy in Italy where you had just devastating speed of deaths ripping through families, and you have to make quick decisions. Do you allow for the fact that because you know let's remember President Trump on his last day in office in 2021. Gave an award, a presidential commendation to Fauci and his team for the speed of Operation Warp Speed. So he was proud of what they did with the vaccines. But do you give him any slack, Fauci, notwithstanding how this all originated? And I think you raised some very important questions and he should be answering them. And by taking the Fifth, he will fuel the sentiment many people have that he's hiding something. So I accept that. But do you accept in a fast-moving pandemic it is impossible to make all the right calls? And the stuff you're talking about now, you know, yes, some people said it at the time, but I remember at the time it being very fast-moving, very chaotic. No one was sure if it could— if the vaccines should or not go to kids or not. You know, I met a guy from the AstraZeneca program in Oxford, for example, who told me that this was a— we got away with this one. He said if it was the Black Death again, for example, if it was the Black Death again, then I think it was 30% of the deaths were kids in that case. So do you give him just finally any slack for the speed of the pandemic and the ever-changing information that came their way?

+3 C-4.2 · Owned an error: past censoriousness · Piers Morgan

No. And let me give you 2 reasons. First of all, as I said earlier, We did not get from Fauci and the vaccine companies the data. They hid the data on the damage and harm it could do to people. And Fauci himself should have understood, as I did as a layperson, that it's not a one-size-fits-all. The vaccine only should have been used and risked upon people with comorbidities, primarily senior citizens, full stop. But the best answer to your question, Piers, is hydroxychloroquine. I would guess, not knowing your views on this, that you think hydroxychloroquine is a quack medicine. But let me tell you this. I— this is one of the many fights I had with Tony Fauci. Hydroxychloroquine, we now know going forward with all the studies, Is number one, it's a very safe medicine. Number two, it's particularly effective for prophylaxis, which helps first responders. And number three, it has a decent benefit in the first 7 days of an infection. So I had a million tablets of hydroxy sitting in warehouses ready to be dispensed to the American people. You take this to the bank, Piers. If I had been able to do that, thousands of Americans would be alive. Now, where does Fauci come into this? And this is where the blame is. In March of 2020, Fauci in his diary, several diary entries, is on record saying that hydroxychloroquine is very, very safe. He wanted it distributed immediately. He wanted remdesivir to be to go through trials, not the other way around. And he was all for it. The politics changed radically when President Trump said, hey, let's try hydroxychloroquine. There was like a this just mass insanity in the left-wing media. Fauci flipped with that, and he was part of the pressure on the FDA to prevent this administration and me. specifically from being able to do what I did. So when you ask me, do I give any slack to Tony Fauci? I say absolutely not. There were just— I mean, he— there's a good case. I think we would have found out today whether he created the virus and killed people if he hadn't taken the Fifth. And if I had been Rand Paul, and the Justice Department, I would have given him immunity— good pun there— just to get the truth out of him. If you gave him like testimony immunity, he wouldn't have had to answer those questions.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-117

↳ P37 raised again here · first raised at U-129

You know what, Peter? That's a really good point. Because actually it would have been— it would be in the American public interest to get the real answers expressed honestly. And if the barrier to doing that is that Fauci doesn't want to incriminate himself, then remove that barrier and get the information out there. I agree. Peter Navarro, I appreciate you coming on Uncensored. Thank you very much.

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground: testimony immunity · Piers Morgan

Such a thoughtful conversation. I appreciate it, Piers. Thanks for letting me be on.

Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask 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.