“Less Popular Than Chlamydia!” Is MAGA Over? Plus Dr Phil On Lindsay Clancy Trial

- It's not a war, we're just bombing Iran. - America's finally great again. - It's approaching denying Biden's senility to be saying there isn't some type of major problem here. Donald Trump is about 20 points down from his high. He's conducted the most unpopular war in American history. - The idea that people that voted for Trump think he's some sort of failure, that is not accurate. - He's less popular with independents than chlamydia is. - If Dave Smith were right, then we'd be seeing Representative Thomas Massie cruising to re-election. We'd be seeing Representative Dan Dulzerian. - The thing is, Will just makes stuff up. - The intimidation that is being carried out by people that I have characterized as being terrorists. - No, I do not agree that they are terrorists, thanks. - So Mike Huckabee is wrong when he uses the word terrorists. - I think that you should not use the word terrorists. - Labor Day weekend is not traditionally a boom time for US political news stories. One of the bigger talking points this weekend has duly been a frenetic debate about whether the president has suddenly gone brunette. Trump has responded to this inertia, as he often does with memes. Yesterday, he suggested that New Mexico, one of, as he puts it, one of the great vote cheating states of all time, could be rebranded as "New America." Meanwhile, the official White House Twitter account launched in 2009 to communicate public health notices about swine flu, posted an AI video of Trump as the Green Lantern superhero. But much like the very real war overshadowing Trump's presidency, the mean war is now proving complicated. If you spent any time at all on social media this week, the chances are you've seen a pretty repulsive creature named the MAGAtard. It was created to satirize the MAGA loyalists who glibly parrot MAGA talking points. - You're scared of flock cameras? You carry a cell phone with GPS all day. What's the difference? It's not a war, we're just bombing Iran. We need the data centers. We have to win the AI race. Oh, my God, shut the hell up about Epstein already. Gas costs more? So what? It's worth it if Iran doesn't get a nuke. If you've got nothing to hide, why do you care if they track you? America's finally great again. - Well, many of Trump's supporters online have since adopted the character for their own ends and tried to turn the joke on his head. The explosive popularity of the original does appear to continue a theme. MAGA was the ascendant cultural power in 2024, riding the groundswell of raucous rebellion against woke excess. MAGA was in fashion. You could even say it was cool. Even the MAGAtard would stop shortly at describing it that way now. The big question in this critical election year is whether Democrats can fill the good vibes void or if things are so bad that they don't even need to. Well, joining me to discuss all this and more, Dave Smith, host, of Part Of The Problem. Ben Ferguson, co-host of The Verdict with Ted Cruz. Joanne Carducci, the commentator known as JoJo from Jez. And Will Chamberlain, the host of the Counterweight podcast. Well, great to have you all. Just a little warning. We've implemented a new device called the mute button. This happens when any panelist attempts to dominate the conversation to the extent we can't hear anybody else speaking. Not saying it's going to be you, Ben Ferguson, but you are on notice. So welcome to all of you. - Thank you. Great to have you here on Labor Day. And I do appreciate it on Labor Day, because most of your colleagues in this industry will currently be on beaches somewhere. Dave Smith, the MAGAtard meme. They're trying to laugh this off, a lot of the MAGA crowd. But I suspect it's probably getting to the heart of what has become a big problem for them, which is, is the MAGA movement, as we knew it, basically over? And the reason I would say it like that, is you see so many who sort of bought into the whole thing to start with, from Megyn Kelly to Tucker Carlson to others, now completely renouncing it. And you've seen a real split, really, in the MAGA movement, if you like. Many people believing that by attacking Iran, by the tariff wars and other things, that Donald Trump has reneged on his promise, as Marjorie Taylor Greene put it, that he betrayed MAGA voters who voted for him, by going the way that he's gone in terms of what he's done. So does the MAGAtard, is it just funny? A bit of a distraction on Labor Day? Or does it cut to a more difficult truth, which many in the MAGA movement may not want to confront? Yeah, well, I don't know if I have any detailed analysis on the meme itself. But yeah, I think it clearly speaks to something much larger. I got to say, I don't want to be. I'm guilty of being a little bit hyperbolic at times, so I don't want to say it's as bad. But I would say, I think it's approaching denying Biden's senility to be saying, like, there isn't some type of major problem here. I mean, obviously, Donald Trump is about, depending on which poll you look at, about 20 points down from his high, when he first was sworn into office again and had record high approval ratings. He's conducted the most unpopular war in American history from start to current position. And it's very, very unpopular. It's clearly a war of choice. He's kind of put all his chips in on this now. And I think that much of the animating spirit of the Donald Trump political force over the last decade, really, has been there's a reason why drain the swamp and lock her up. And these things were the chance at his rallies. And the fact that he's put up zero deep state arrests, there's clearly no. This is kind of what the Epstein thing, I think, was symbolized more broadly. And yes, of course, it's not just that these most popular figures have turned their back or have turned on Donald Trump, is that Donald Trump explicitly came out several different times over the last year and a half and said, like, hey, any of you guys who are saying all the same stuff that all of my surrogates on the campaign were saying about Epstein, I don't want your support anymore. MAGA isn't Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones and Candace Owens. It's Mark Levin, you know, and anybody who says no new wars, just like all these guys were chanting no new wars throughout 2024, now you're the bad guy. You know, essentially, a huge part of the coalition was told to leave. And so that's it. Donald Trump would lose to Kamala Harris if they were running for president today. Well, OK, this whole thing is over. OK, I would say that I don't believe. I don't believe the last part because I thought she was pretty useless. However, Ben Ferguson. She was terrible. No, believe me, she was terrible. That's how bad he is. OK, I still don't think she beat him in a month of Sundays. But, Ben Ferguson, you can laugh. But if I had said to you that as you approach the crucial midterm elections, which ultimately may well define Trump's entire presidency going over both terms, if I had said to you that he would be at 36% approval rating and that the reasons for that was he'd launched the mother of all wars in the Middle East against Iran, having vowed not to take America into wars in the Middle East, that gas prices would be raging along with other cost of living problems, as a consequence of that, despite his promise to get those down, that nobody would have been made accountable for the Epstein scandal, despite the promises before the election that they would be, you know, if we'd totted up the checklist of things that you may not have expected Trump to do, surely you'd have to concede this has been a pretty difficult pill for the average MAGA voter to swallow, because this goes completely against the rhetoric of the campaigning before the 2020 election. - I think you're looking at it a little bit differently than people that actually voted for Donald Trump look at it. They wanted him to do multiple things. Number one, he wanted, they said, secure the border. That's something he did. He said he wanted to deport people, the worst among them that were in this country and protect cities. He did that. He said he was going to lower crime so that you weren't held hostage in high crime cities. 48% is the rate now in Memphis, Tennessee of murders are down in one year since he got involved there. We see it in Detroit, we see it in Baltimore, cleaning up Washington, DC, having pride. So the idea that people that voted for Trump think he's some sort of failure, that is not accurate. Do I think that he's got a problem with this Iran war? I've said on the show before, you need to wrap it up quickly. That didn't happen. Could it be the Achilles heel going into the midterms? Quite possibly. And I think what you're going to hear the president say this week in Dallas at the midterm convention, which has never happened before, is let me remind you about the things I did do that are making a huge impact in your life. No tax on tips is massive with undecided voters. No tax on overtime, massive with undecided voters, as well as minority voters. There's a lot of things he did, like the biggest tax cut that we've ever seen that were in the big beautiful bill that is huge for Americans. He's going to have to remind them of that. I don't like going into the midterms with Iran and high gas prices. I'd love for them to be low. But this idea that like a large portion of the MAGA movement left him, no. Tucker Carlson's crazy, Marley Taylor Greene's crazy. I've been saying that for longer than when they were popular. I said that on this show. I said that they are not part of the MAGA world that I'm in. The Alex Jones world never have been. They're drifters. They make money off of whatever the newest, flashiest thing is, and they get downloads and clicks and clickbait from it. I've said that for years. How do you explain? Running a business means you want to be available all the time, because if you do miss that call or that text, your competition will pick it up. Today's show is sponsored by Quo. That's Q-U-O. We've developed the perfect solution for preventing any missed opportunities. It's a business phone system which keeps all of your allocated work calls, texts, voicemails in one place. That means anybody on your team can pick up the conversation, see the full history, and respond fast, even when you can't. More than 90,000 businesses already rely on Quo to remain reachable and the professional at all times. You can keep your existing number and set it up within minutes. There's even an AI agent, which can reply or book appointments when the whole team is offline. That never happens here. Money's on the line. Say hello with Quo. Try it for free and get 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com slash peers. That's quo.com slash peers. But Ben, how do you explain that the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, that when they talk about this, they say, look, this is not what was on the agenda in the campaign for 2024. Yeah, I think it's the same way that they attacked him beforehand, and then they realized, oh, we got to get on the MAGA train to get viewership up. And then all of a sudden, they're like, oh, wait, he's becoming somewhat unpopular, and he's reached this high. Now I'm going to jump off the train and criticize the train and keep getting the clicks. I don't know what they believe, because they're constantly changing what they believe. Ben, what you're not addressing. Listen, I don't dispute Donald Trump's done a number of good things. He has. And I always say, you've got to be fair and balanced about this. But I do think the big swings he's taken have not been a good thing. I don't think he's done a good thing. I don't think it's gone well. Iran was about the biggest swing you could have taken in terms of a Middle Eastern war, right? And it's been, so far, a complete fiasco. We were supposed to be over in two to three weeks. I don't think it's a fiasco in the sense that you can't, look, should he have said it was going to take three weeks? No, right? Like, I think that was a bad idea to say. Did he believe that he was going to get over with quicker than this? Well, let me say why I think it's a fiasco. Yes, he did. Let me say why I think it's a fiasco. It's a fiasco because the economic consequences, never mind anything else. Economic consequences of this war have been a spike in prices right when Trump had promised to bring those down. And as you head into the midterm elections, that could be the thing which triggers the Republicans losing both the House and the Senate. It could easily be the case that they lose both. I'm worried about that on the show. And if they do, he took a massive swing by doing the one thing he said he wasn't going to do. And so that's where I take issue a little bit about the other man. I think what's really interesting about the MAGA figures is that they're all anti-Iran war. But they were against him before that moment. Yeah, they were against him before that moment. Yeah, but Ben, they're anti-Iran war. They're pro-accountability for Epstein. They're pro-policies that bring down cost of living prices for average Americans. I mean, this was the MAGA template. So when you say they're all crazy and this and the other, many people would say they're more wedded ideologically today to what MAGA figures are. And I think that's a big problem. And I think that's supposed to be about than the person that created it. Here's the thing with drifters. It's Monday morning quarterbacking. And we just saw a college football start here. And everybody's brilliant today about why their team lost or why this coach should have done this differently. Like, welcome to football season. Are you guys in soccer? It's always the Monday morning. This group is so small that you can name them. Like, that's how small they are. It is not the majority of MAGA. The majority of MAGA and America First still stands with the president because they understand that he's doing a hell of a lot better job than what the alternative is. And then you have this small group of people that you can name and you don't add many names to them. It's Candace Owen. It's Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's Tucker Carlson. Like, it's a short list of the same people. And they're the party of clickbait. That's who they are. They're the party of drifters. They'll go wherever they can make the most money now and make the most cash. And then they'll sell out yet again. So again, I go back to the core here. The majority of people that voted for Donald Trump are happy with Donald Trump. If you're in the middle and you're a swing voter, you may go one way or the other. But if you're in the middle and you're a swing voter, you may go one way or the other on the issue of Iran and high gas prices. I understand that. That's why I said I think in May or June on this show, the president has like two or three weeks to probably wrap this up or it's going to affect the midterms. Let me bring in Jojo. Welcome back to Uncensored. I mean, it seems to me the biggest problem won't be with the core MAGA voter. It's going to be with the independents. And Trump had a lot of those vote for him. You know, the young Latino men as well, for example, who came out and voted for him in big numbers. All the numbers I'm seeing in the polling say they've all just disappeared. Right. They just feel this is not what they voted for. They all feel a bit disillusioned that if it turns out that Trump loses the whole of Congress, that will be, I think, one of the main reasons he lost these guys in particular who bought into his worldview and don't think he's delivered it. Certain percentage of MAGA, the base, the hardcore, they're never going to leave him. They're never going to abandon him. But he is less popular with independents. And chlamydia is, you know, he's less popular than mange. He's less popular than a root canal without Novocaine. He's deeply, deeply unpopular because, as Dave was talking about, so many of the core issues that he ran on, including Epstein. Epstein is actually one of the more important motivators for people when it comes to Donald Trump, because he ran on that. He decided to run on that. Prices are up right now. Groceries are up. Electricity, housing, gas is 33 percent more expensive. Inflation is at 3.4 percent. Now, these are the things, Ben, that the average voter is actually looking at. And if you voted for Trump, if you were swayed by Trump, either because you didn't like Kamala or because you you were lulled into some sense of amnesia from the first term, you're not looking at these numbers right now and saying, well, you know, fentanyl arrests are up and border crossings are down. It what happens, what motivates you is what happens in your daily life, what impacts your bank account. That's the lived reality. I agree with you. I agree with you. But the August job numbers would say that what you're saying is not true. I'm not done. I'm not done. He's not delivering on any of those promises. Not only that, he's not even pretending to care about delivering August job numbers. He showed that what he just said is actually incorrect. Repeatedly, that affordability is a hoax. Imagine, you know what things are costing and how less your dollar is going. And you voted for Donald Trump because you were concerned about the price of eggs. You were concerned about the price of groceries and elect and electricity and your your health care and your medication, et cetera. And Donald Trump instead is out there and all of these foreign entanglements and posting ridiculous memes of himself looking like Jesus. This is not what anyone who voted for him and held their noses was. Did Donald Trump lower drug prices? As you just said, you act like he didn't. He literally did a website and worked on people. Let me jump in. The truth is he did a website and worked on people. Let me jump in. Let me jump in. Let me jump in. Let me jump in. But the problem, Ben, I'm going to bring Will Chamberlain here. Welcome back to you, Will, to The problem is not that Trump hasn't done some good things because he has. The problem is that the big swings he's taken have not worked. You know, we'll never really know, I guess, if the global tariff war would have been successful because it was massively skewed by the impact of the war on Iran and the economic fallout where the Iranian regime realized if you control Australia foremost, you control 20% of the world's energy flow and you can hold the world to global energy ransom. That's exactly what they've done. And that has had an impact not just in the region, but in America and the UK and everywhere. Right. So to me, these things have all had enormous consequences. So the smaller wins that Trump has had have been completely overshadowed. As, by the way, you talk about Monday morning quarterback Ben Ferguson, but on the on the day it was launched on a Sunday, the Iran war, I said this is I don't get it. Why would you do this? So, Will Chamberlain, my point to you is I don't think people are focused on the smaller wins like drug prices where they should be, because all they're going to be thinking about in the midterms is, well, we've had this this war that's been running now for half a year, more than half a year. And the economic fallout has been very real on me and my family. And I'm going to vote accordingly. Jojo from jurors and Dave Smith seriously on the question of what motivates Trump voters, right? Jojo from jurors is a democratic partisan. And if Dave Smith were right, then we'd be seeing representative Thomas Massey cruising to reelection. We'd be seeing governor James Fishback. We'd be seeing representative Dan Bilzerian. We'd be seeing all these candidates who, you know, are aligned with Dave's view of the Republican party, but they all just got wrecked because guess what? Donald Trump is the most popular man in the Republican party. His popularity is held up and he's doing well. Now, as to your specific points, what is Trump, what are voters going to look at? They're going to look at immigration crime in the economy. When you say he's doing well, hang on one second. When you say he's doing well, a Financial Times poll found that only 33% of registered voters approve of Trump's performance as president. It's the lowest number recorded since the newspaper began asking the question. He's talking about among Republican MAGA voters. You're focusing on polls rather than metrics. I know, but I'm talking about of all registered voters, right? This is the lowest number any president's had in the FT polling ever, right? And it's a three-point decrease from the previous month, right? And yet unemployment's at, what, 4%? Great jobs numbers? Like, the economy's not doing as bad as you make it out. Three X job number predictions in August. Okay, so we'll finish your point. And so, okay, so again, again, immigration, he's killing it. You know, the most effective single policy initiative of any president in the last decade of closing the border and reducing crossings down. 95 percent. Big win. I agree. Massively at 1950s lows. The average American's lives are better. And so when people tune into the elections over the next weeks, I expect you'll see. that things do better. Remember, the polls, you guys are relying so much on the polls. Were the polls right in the Al-Sayed election in Michigan? Were they right in the Hong election in Wisconsin? You've got to be careful looking at these polls, especially in the summer, to evaluate how things are going. Just to be clear, I will play this clip back after the midterm elections. Are you saying that you think the Republicans are going to hold the House and the Senate? Or what are you saying? I think the House will be very close. I think we'll hold the Senate. Okay. Dave Smith, I wasn't aware you'd endorsed Dan Balzerian. Maybe you could address that damning allegation first. I didn't say he endorsed him, but he's part of the same wing of the party. I don't think Dan Balzerian and Dave Smith are part of the same wing of any party. Listen, what he said was, if I was right, if my worldview was correct, then Dan Balzerian would have won Congress. Even though the thing is, we'll just make stuff up. I said that Dan Balzerian had no chance of winning Congress. I did think Massey had a chance of squeaking by, but I also said that, yeah, you got $30-plus million from the Israel lobby coming in. That is awfully difficult. However, Will- It is. $20 million coming in from libertarians around the country. Okay, cool, cool. Great point. Anyway, I will say that in terms of getting things wrong, you did say back on this show when me and you were debating, I believe in April, that you would be shocked if the Iranian regime was still standing in a month. So now you're coming back here. You don't even acknowledge that anymore. So no, if you weren't wrong about everything, maybe Donald Trump wouldn't have destroyed his entire coalition, but you were completely wrong, and you're also wrong about the midterms, which you are going down for. You guys sound like the Biden service. You sound like the Biden service talking about how the economy is so good, and regular people just don't know about it, because you can pull one number or another one out of your ass. Think about this, Pierce. Here, Pierce, are we doing the mute thing, or can we do negative? Don't try to reach out, because actually, people can't hear when you do. I sat here and listened to everybody else talk, and you're all saying, I mean, think about what nonsense it is. Dude, Ben Ferguson, the metric that he used, Pierce, think about how they try to talk. He said, most people who voted for Donald Trump still don't regret voting for Donald Trump. But Pierce, so you could have authority. So if you were to get, if Donald Trump were to get 30 million less votes this time, you could still say most people who voted for him didn't vote. That's not the metric. The metric is over whether he took his winning coalition and completely destroyed it. And to sit here and say, oh, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson and, and, and, and, um, Megan Kelly and Alex Jones, these are just a few people over here in a group. Yeah, the group is the top five biggest shows in this field, maybe putting Pierce in there too, where the show is dominated by people destroying this war. Dude, there were six war aims for this war when you set out. Last time I talked to Will, he said the regime was still about to fall. You haven't achieved a single one of them. Hundreds of billions of dollars lost, thousands of people, including Americans and little children. Dead over this thing. And you guys sit here and go, eh, no big deal. That's all you got. Ben, focus and respond to that. Yeah. A couple of things here. One, if you look at the polling numbers of the president, United States of America among Republicans, which is MAGA, he still has an overwhelming approval number. Number two, Americans do know what's going on, what's going on with the economy. Look at the job numbers. They were 3X what they were expecting in August. You have low unemployment, you have inflation. Under 4%. And you have a war going on. I understand that you guys, it's easy to sell doom and gloom. I go to election day. I thought it wasn't a war, Ben. Hang on. Ben, I thought it wasn't a war. Call it whatever you want to call it. You can say war, not war. Hang on. What are you calling it? I'm going back to the minds of American voters. It's very significant to hear. Hang on. I absolutely think it's a war there. I have no problem saying that. I've called it war the whole time, Pierce. Ben, it's very significant to hear a Republican and a MAGA supporter describe it as a war, because we've been repeating it. I've been repeatedly reassured it is not a war. So which is it? I've called it war since the very beginning. I've had no problem calling it war. I've called it war since day one. If you're dropping bombs and they're responding, it's a war. Even when we went after their nuclear sites, I believe that is an act of war, in my opinion. So should Donald Trump be calling it a war now? It's semantics. I don't give a shit. Pretty important semantics. Because if it's a war, I'm more obsessed with stopping someone from getting a nuclear weapon. There's a difference here. If it's a war, here's the thing. There's a difference. If it is a war, and the President of the United States says it's a war, then he has to get congressional approval for every aspect of that war. If it's not a war, he doesn't. Is troops on the ground invading a country? Are we invading a country? No. If you ask people that are at the Pentagon, whether it's Obama or Biden or Clinton or Al Gore, I don't care who you ask. They would tell you that a war is when you're invading a nation, when you have troops on the ground, and there are different things. By the way, if you don't like my definition, go yell at Bill Clinton for Kosovo, okay? Like, in Bosnia. Like, there's multiple people that can say you can play semantics on this. My definition of a war is pretty, is clear. If you're shooting at something and they're shooting back, is it a limited war? I think it's a limited war. Is it an all-out ground invasion? No. But again, I go back to the Pentagon's decision on this. What war people say a war is, it is a different definition than mine. I'm not a commander. I'm not a general. I don't wear stripes on shoulders, okay? So that's their decision. I'm fine with that. But I go back to the core here. When you go into Election Day, this election is going to be real simple. Do you want the radical democratic socialist agenda? Do you want the al-Saeeds? Do you want the out-of-control crime in New York City? Do you want that? Or do you want what Donald Trump said he was going to give you overall? Not all of it's been perfect, but it is a secure border. It is good jobs, manufacturing coming back, America first policies in general. And if you ask conservative voters, by the way, this is a president that has so much muscle. He got rid of foreign companies. He got rid of that were Republicans to get better Republicans there in the Senate, that is ballsy on a level that most presidents never even remotely touch. They always go with the incumbent. They look the other way. They hold their nose, even if that person's screwing them on most votes like the Save America Act, simple things like that. So when you go to election day, I do not see doom and gloom based on the data that I'm seeing, based on him in the primaries. Is Donald Trump on the ballot? No, I actually wish he was, because I think we'd have a better chance of keeping the Senate and the House if he was on the ballot. He's not on the ballot. He's going to try to put himself on the ballot with the midterms next week in Dallas with the convention saying, if you want what I am, you've got to go vote and you've got to vote for these people, because otherwise the entire agenda you wanted will disappear because Democrats will be in charge. He's trying to put himself on the ballot. Okay, Jojo, it seems to me that the issue here, which may prevent a clean sweep for the Democrats, is there's a similar kind of split in the Democrat movement, which is between the moderates and the Democratic Socialists, right? And it's as big a split, I would argue, ideologically, as the one you're seeing in the conservative right movement in America. You know, what happens if actually when it comes to it, people look at the Democratic Party and think, well, they're all a bunch of real hard left socialists, because they look at it and see Mamdani, they see al-Sayed, they see AOC, they think they're the front people now for the party. They're the ones getting all the oxygen and media attention. And they're thinking, I don't feel comfortable with that, right? I mean, there is a danger that this Democratic Socialist revolution actually ends up stopping the Democrats getting the big win that they probably should have. Well, I think it comes down to, you know, running hypotheticals against reality, because that's what we're talking about here, because we have the reality of what we've been enduring since Donald Trump returned to office. We have the reality of the broken promises. We have the reality of our economy. We have the reality of this war that isn't a war. And by the way, Ben, it isn't semantics to the women and family members. There's a widow who lost her husband in the war and isn't getting the benefits because she was told that it wasn't officially a war. And so, therefore, she wasn't due those benefits. So it's not semantics to the families of the fallen, the 18 heroes that Donald Trump sent to their deaths and called, just the other day, small potatoes. That's not semantics to, those people. It's not semantics to the school children who were killed. He did not say it was small potatoes. That's not what he said about 18 people that died. That's a lie. That's a lie. He did not talk about, no, no. He did not talk about 18 people that lost their lives and say it was small potatoes. I would like it if you would just stop interrupting me. You deserve the mute button. Peers, I was answering the question. And thank you for being quiet now. I'm glad you're not in charge. The hypotheticals of what we would be looking at, by the way, look at New York City. New York City is not some dystopian hellscape at the moment. It's not, crime run amok under Mondani. In fact, to the opposite. Dave, when's the last time you were in New York? Thanks to Donald Trump, right. I was there last weekend. There are plenty of stuff for us to talk about that we are enduring as a country right now. Higher prices, higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, a foreign entanglement seven months, seven months into this. Everything, health care is more expensive. Inflation is going up. Consumer spending is going down. We have plenty of things that we can talk about in reality, as opposed to fear mongering hypotheticals about what this country would look like when it's not going well right now for anybody but the Epstein class. That's what people should be focused on. And I don't do the friendly fire against the other factions in my party. Just to be clear, hang on, Will, we checked the potatoes quote. Donald Trump said, I called it, Donald Trump said I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us. it's not a big thing when pressed by Rachel Scott of ABC News about the record-setting deployments of certain service members as part of this the president lashed out repeatedly asking how long will we in Vietnam which is a kind of I would say irrelevant right he didn't say it was about the people that died no no it is true he didn't specifically say that about people who died that is true however however dismissing this war in Iran as just small potatoes given actually what's happened in the last six months I think he's equally disingenuous well I want to point out something that Jojo from jurors just did you notice she got on her high horse about the 18 fallen service members but then the moment we bring up Hassan Piker who said America deserved 9-11 who cheered on Hezbollah and the Houthis you suddenly like oh take another drink you need to either pick that you want to be on the side of America or on the side of the United States of America and if you're comfortable with him in the tent then American voters wait what even happened here is a mute button he's a fucking streamer dude he's a fucking streamer Donald Trump is the commander in chief of the United States of America he's not a streamer we're not talking about Hassan Piker I know you want to talk about Hassan Piker but he's not in charge guess what he didn't send them to their deaths Donald Trump did and he owes them more than comparing them to Vietnam well your voice you agree with Hassan Piker that America deserved 9-11 Then I don't know what kind of a patriot you think you are, that you can reduce their deaths and their sacrifices to a talking point about a streamer. Do you agree Americans deserve 9-11? Do you think Americans deserve 9-11, yes or no? We are, do I? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm sorry, Piers. I agree with you before 9-11. Are you kidding me? You know what I know? Donald Trump is lying about going down to ground zero and saying he can help you move from a problem. He lied about being able to see the second plane hit. He lied about giving money to the families. He is using 9-11 to make it about himself and false valor. You want to talk about 9-11? Better than putting up twin towers in the background and cheering on the terrorists. I lived near the firehouses where 10 of those firemen were killed on that day. Did we deserve 9-11? Then why are you not being given enough tools? You want to talk about someone who disgraces the memories of the people who died at 9-11? You look at Donald Trump. That's what you do. You look at Donald Trump who's going to go to the Pentagon on 9-11 and worry about picking up a gun. Then why are you not giving enough tools? Let's just calm things down a little bit, please. Will Chamberlain, looking at the bigger picture here, it'll be a very significant midterm election for a number of reasons, but one of which will be the signal it sends about what may then happen in 2028, the general election. Polymarket has over $700 million now in the presidential election winner market. It's got J.D. Vance in the lead at 28%. He's been consistently in the lead. AOC next on 13%. John Ossoff behind her on 12%. And Marco Rubio on 9%. And I think Tucker Carlson pops in at a lower level as well. You know, the consequences of this midterm election could be very, very big for a number of people, but particularly for any of the candidates here, right? Possibly, but I doubt it. I mean, usually the first midterm after a presidential is not good for the president's party, but oftentimes they recover in the. in the following presidential election. I mean, that happened to Obama. Like, he took big losses in 2020 and then won in 2012. So I think it's really going to come down to how things are doing, again, on the core issues that matter to people, right? Economy, immigration, and what kind of, you know, messages coming out of the Democratic Party, right? The Democrat Party is, as we've just demonstrated, has this huge split between its DSA wing and its establishment wing. It's really going to be. A lot's going to determine, you know, kind of fall on whether or not which side of those. which side of that internal split wins. Okay. Ben Ferguson's out to go. He actually stayed a few minutes longer than he said he could, so he's gone to do his own stuff. Dave Smith, I'm going to interview Danny Danon, who's obviously the Israeli ambassador to the UN. A very significant moment, I felt, came over the weekend where Mike Huckabee, the American ambassador to Israel, actually described Israeli settlers and what they're doing on the West Bank as terrorists. Let's take a listen. Let's take a listen. There may be a few hundred that are responsible, but that's a few hundred too many. And one of the messages that we have been sending and we will continue to send is that people in these communities have a right to live with a level of security and safety. And that the government has a responsibility to make sure that that happens. Dave Smith, I thought that was pretty significant, that you had someone like Mike Huckabee who's been steadfastly loyal to Israel throughout this whole period. And now he's describing the actions of some Israelis as terrorism. What did you make of that? Well, I agree with you. I thought it was a very interesting moment. And, you know, if I'm being complete. Look, I mean, to your point, not just loyal to Israel. I think that's such an understatement with a guy like Mike Huckabee. But in his own words, really, right, by his own religious fundamentalism, believes that it is the will of God that this humanly government not only exists, but perhaps even expanded. I mean, look, again, you can listen to him say it himself. I would think that would be something that would disqualify anyone on this side of the Enlightenment from being in a position of political power there. And I'm shocked, honestly, Pierce, as I've expressed many times over the last few years on your show. I'm shocked that there hasn't been more of this already, if for nothing else, just purely for PR. You know, just purely for PR, it would be helpful, you know, to have Mike Huckabee up there and at least gain a little bit of credibility. Like, no, I won't just go along with them on everything. I have been so shocked that as we've, kind of in a weird way, Pierce, me and you together, have seen support for Israel just absolutely crater over the last three years, that there have not been more in the pro-Israel side. Who wouldn't just go, like, yeah, okay, maybe it is a little bit messed up what these settlers are doing here. You know what, they have a point. Instead of just screeching like hysterical leftists, that you're a bigot, you're a wasist, you must love Hamas, as me and you have heard so many times. So I give some degree of credit to Mike Huckabee for saying this out loud. But at the same time, Pierce, I mean, what a minimal standard that someone is finally acknowledging this. Dude, this conversation isn't even about it. This is about Israel proper. This is about the last little bit of historic Palestine, not even the last 22% because Gaza has already been destroyed. The last, like, you know, 16% or whatever you're talking about here. And the poor Palestinians there can't even live without being constantly harassed. And so, look, credit for him saying this, but at the same time, Pierce, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone in my position to say, you just have no credibility in the world that if this is a problem, then Mike Huckabee's only response here should be to resign his post and let somebody with an ounce of credibility take it over where, yeah, you know, Pierce, like, he can say there's only so much an embassy can do, but that's kind of true in a vacuum. It's a little bit different when it is a client state completely dependent on us for every single one of these military actions and their very own survival in many ways. So, like, yeah, actually, there is a lot of political influence that America could push on Israel. And for whatever reason, we never seem to. Well, Chamberlain, it seems to me. What this has done, and you can tell by the panicky reaction of many on the pro-Israeli side in trying to rein back what Huckabee said and give it, as they see it, as more clarity, blah, blah, blah, that once that terrorism word is out from the lips of the American ambassador to Israel, that's a big threshold that's been crossed, because now all the guests that come on here who say to me, you know, you keep calling Hamas terrorists, but what about what the Israelis are doing? Now you have a senior American official who's saying it because he's heard from Americans in the region who have been the victims of this terrorism. He's now using the terrorist label to describe Israelis. It's a big moment. It's going to come back and be used again and again and again as a stick of criticism. I mean, I'm not sure how big the import is and how broad it will be in that sense. But I do think it's a good thing. I mean, I think that in many ways, you know, the Israelis have gotten away a little bit with being able to point at the other people in their region and be, well, look at what they're doing, look at what they're doing, and then kind of sweep the problem with some settler terrorism under the rug. And so I think it's a good thing. I mean, honestly, I think the Israeli government, especially now that things have settled down for them a little bit, they need to start focusing a little more on dealing with these internal problems, and I suspect they will. I mean, terrorism is not just a little internal problem, is it? Well, I mean, I'm talking about internal in the sense of it's a problem-- No, I get it. Right, but Jojo, let me bring you in here. I mean, it's interesting to me that Huckabee's only said this in relation to Americans living in the region, right? So, obviously, many people will say, well, what about innocent people living in Gaza, not members of Hamas or supporters of Hamas, but the many innocent people who've been, in their eyes, terrorised by Israeli forces, for example. You know, are we going to see now a much wider use of the word terrorism because Mike Huckabee has used the word? I think they're going to try and split those hairs that way, but it's true that it was in relationship to the Americans there. I think that that's the way he's going to argue why he said this, but I think that it's an accurate label. I mean, I think it's gotten a lot more attention recently, based on attacks on reporters, et cetera, that we've seen on the news, and I think that that kind of pressure. To Dave's point, and, Dave, I can't believe I've said to Dave's point several times, but the last two times we've been on this show together, you've said things that I agreed with, which, you know. Not sure how I feel about it. I think we all feel uncomfortable about this unlikely. You should feel uncomfortable about that, Dave. I don't love it, though. Hey, nothing wrong with a little strange every now and then. But my point is. You know, I don't think this is some opening of the door to. You know, that word being used more broadly as it pertains to the people of Gaza and Palestine, as a whole, but I do think that it's interesting because it is the correct label, and I think that the people who agree with that should be using that and what he said to make the point more broadly that it shouldn't just be about whether or not this is related to Americans. It should be a human issue, not an American-specific issue. Right. And, Pierce, could I add just very quickly in there that there's. Because I did have this big debate with Ben. Unfortunately, he had to leave about using the term terrorist when describing U.S. military actions or IDF, but I do think it's interesting just that Will kind of made the point there at the end, and I think this sums up so much of what so many of us have been talking about over the last three years. When it's settler terrorism, when it's a settler dispute, they go, hey, this is an internal domestic problem. This is a problem within Israeli sovereignty. Like, okay, they don't say that about October 7th. They don't say that about any type of terrorism that comes in from those. They treat that like a military problem, and so you don't get a day in court. This is why so many of us called it a genocide, you don't get to destroy all of Gaza when you've been controlling Gaza since 1967. These people are, as Will just admitted, your people living under your control. That's what puts you in Stalin-Mau-Hitler territory when you start slaughtering all of your own people. It's just kind of different than a war with a foreign country. Okay. You claim it when it's beneficial to you. I'm going to have to leave you there. We have Danny Dunne on waiting. So I thank you all very much indeed for the interesting debate. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Well, in a hugely significant intervention this weekend, as I was saying, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said that some Israeli settlers are guilty of terrorism in the West Bank. Joining me now is Danny Dunne, the Israeli ambassador to the UN. Danny Dunne, welcome back to Uncensored. Thank you for having me, Pew. So Mike Huckabee has categorised the behaviour of some Israeli settlers in the West Bank as being terrorists after hearing from Americans living in the region. What's your response to that? Ambassador Huckabee is a great friend of Israel. And if you pay attention to what he said, he actually spoke about a few dozens who commit those horrible crimes. And he actually said that you should not label the entire community in Judea and Samaria, more than half a million people committing those crimes. It's like you're taking the entire city of Liverpool and you label the entire community as being criminals. We condemn those criminal acts, period. The president, the prime minister, we take actions, we arrest them, we indict them, and we are doing more. But do you agree? Do you agree they are terrorists? No, I do not agree that they are terrorists. And I will tell you why. Because when you speak about terrorist activities, you have to look for the pattern. You have to look for the budget and the ideology behind it. Here you have a case of a few dozen criminals. Nobody's behind them. Nobody's organizing them. We have to put them behind bars, and we are doing that. But if you compare it to the Hamas terrorism, for example, when you have a radical jihadist ideology with an organization, with structure, funding, that's terrorism. It is not the same. So Mike Huckabee is wrong when he uses the word terrorist. I think, you know, even at the UN, many times I tell my colleagues, how can you call it settler terrorism? But you cannot use that term. Because basically by doing so, you are labeling the entire community. So why is the American ambassador to Israel, a great friend of Israel, as you said, why is he using that term? Well, you know, as I said earlier, Ambassador Huckabee is a great friend of Israel. I know him for many years. He actually supports the community in Judea. But he's wrong, is he? And like myself, those criminal acts are not supporting the community. But is he wrong? I think that you should not use the word terrorists when you speak about those criminal acts. So just to be clear, Mike Huckabee is wrong when he says they're terrorists. Well, I'm answering you. I would not refer to them as terrorists. I don't accept the term settler terrorism. It is not acceptable because it is not the case. What about if they're actually committing acts of terrorism against Palestinian families? What if they're attacking them? Some cases killing them, setting fire to their homes, seizing their property. What else do you call it if it's not terrorism? Well, let's look at the facts. And, you know, I always come prepared to your interviews. It is more dangerous to be a Jew living in Judea and Samaria than the Palestinian. But in your show and in any other shows, nobody speaks about the violence against the Jewish communities. The focus is only on the criminal act of the Jews. The Jewish communities of those dozens of criminals. And let me give you the numbers. On the month of July 2026, there were 331 Palestinian attacks against Jews in Judea and Samaria. And at that same month, 160 attacks of the Jews against Palestinians. Now, we condemn all of them and we don't want to see them happening. But, you know, the fact that we are talking only about the attacks of Jews, Jews against Arabs, I raise the question, why is that? Why you never speak about. Would you describe what the Palestinians in those cases are doing as acts of terrorism? If it's organized, like Hamas, it is. You see, there's a problem I have, you see, Danny Denham, because you're quick to label what the Palestinians are doing there as terrorism. You have no qualms in doing that. And when you say it's not organized, of course what these Israeli settlers are doing is organized. It has the implicit and public approval of senior members of the Israeli government, like Ben-Gavir and Smodrich. They actively encourage them. There is widespread evidence that the IDF turned a blind eye to all of this violence because they're also part of this, that there is a desire by members of the Israeli government to take the whole of the West Bank if they can get away with it. So when you say the Palestinian side is organized, I say to you that there is increasing evidence that what is happening with the settlers, the Israeli settlers, is also organized and, in fact, is encouraged by people at high levels of Israeli government. Absolutely not. You are completely mistaken. And I will prove it to you. Look at what's happening when there is a criminal act which is being committed by a Jew. It's being condemned by everyone. We actually say that it is not part of who we are, the president, the prime minister, and the Palestinian side. It's exactly the opposite. They glorify the name squares and cities after terrorists who killed massacred Jews. They pay them for the money they have, pay to slay. They pay them. So look at the culture of hate that the Palestinians have compared to what we have. We condemn, and I'm telling you that, you will not find anyone in Israel with an official who supports those criminal acts. We are against it, and it's not part of our society. And that is the difference. We want to see stability, and I, you know, I'll be very honest with you, and I will be direct. The Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere, Piers. They are there to stay. Also, the Arab communities are there to stay. So we have to realize that. And by labeling the Jewish communities as terrorists, you know, it's not going to move them anywhere. And I hear the voices coming from the UK, Sweden, and the United States, and the United States, and the United States, and the United States, and the United States, and the United States, and the United States. They will stay in Judea and Samaria forever. Yeah, I mean, you talk about Britain there. Again, Mike Huckabee accused the British government of Jew hate over Ed Miliband's claims that medicines were being blocked from entering Gaza. Ed Miliband is the new foreign secretary of the UK government. And he posted his offense, which apparently, made him a Jew hater, even though he is Jewish and Huckabee isn't. He said this. meeting talking about Gaza to people who've been there and are there on the ground and frankly it was horrific what is unfolding. You know the stories that people were telling me of medicines being blocked, children dying while waiting for vital life-saving treatment. When you hear that account of what is happening you know that we as a UK government as the Prime Minister has said have got to act and act more decisively than we have. Now what Ed Miliband said there has been widely endorsed by any number of independent bodies. Israel says there's absolutely no issue with aid going into Gaza or the Gaza Strip. However as you know there remains a ban on international media operating freely in Gaza to verify that one way or another. Surely the best way to establish who's going to be in power is to have a ban on international media. So what you do is you let the journalists in to do their job. Not embedded with the IDF where every movement is controlled but to operate freely given there is supposedly a ceasefire in Gaza. There should be no reason why international media cannot be allowed to go in and do their jobs freely and to work out where the truth lies. Why does Israel continue to ban international media from going in freely of their own accord? Before we go to that we discuss it every time we talk. I have to comment on the words of the minister. You know he said in his video that he heard stories and that's what it is. It's stories. It's not facts. They're first-hand accounts of people who were there. It's not serious. It's completely not serious. You think he's made them up? Is he inventing them? I think that he didn't check the facts. He's wrong. Completely wrong. So just to be clear you're accusing the British Foreign Secretary of inventing these stories? I'm telling you he's not checking the facts. How can he be a Jew? All right but Danny's on. How can Ed Miliband be a Jew hater according to Mike Huckabee when Mike Huckabee isn't Jewish but Ed Miliband is? I didn't call him a Jew hater and you're putting me twice in contact with my dear friend Mike Huckabee. So Mike Huckabee's wrong about that as well. Is Mike Huckabee right about any of this? I'm saying that the Minister Secretary of State is a foreign affairs. He's wrong. He has the facts wrong. He should speak with UN officials. Why don't you let the media in? Just to repeat a question I ask you every time but it never changes so I keep having to ask it. When will the international media be allowed in by the Israeli government to do their jobs and to verify whether anything you've just told me is true? So today you have thousands of aid workers in Gaza that work in Gaza. They're getting in and out in Gaza. I'm talking about media. And you should ask them. They can report. They can give you the information. They can tell you the numbers. They can tell you about the trucks coming in every day. Hundreds of trucks coming in every day. What about the media? I told you that many times that regarding the media, we don't want the media to get inside there. They might get hurt. You tell me it's about them to take responsibility. But we know that at the end of the day Israel would be blamed if something happens. There is a new UN report today. You obviously work at the UN warning that the large-scale removal of rubble from Gaza oversaw. in Rafah, in other areas. And now when it's happening and you have rebels coming out of Gaza, somebody at the UN is blaming us for committing a crime. That is the UN. That is the hypocrisy of the UN. Well, again, the best way to verify if you are committing crimes in Gaza is to let journalists in to do their jobs. The longer the Israeli government bans journalists from doing that, the more suspicion will grow that you are covering up war crimes that have been committed in Gaza and may continue to be committed in Gaza. So I think that the fact that today you have hundreds of NGOs and thousands of employees working there, you know, reporting from there, you get videos from Gaza, you have the. So if it's that safe for them, let the journalists in. So, as I told you, that's something we discussed. I cannot tell you that it's not being discussed, but still the decision of the government is not to take that risk. But you understand why I find it very hard to believe a word any of you say about what's happening there until you let the media in. Yeah, but you better believe the UN reports, you know, because in the last few weeks. So hang on, so now the UN is telling the truth? No, when you look at the fact of traps coming. You just told me we can't believe what the UN says? Which one is it? When you look at the fact of traps coming into Gaza, there is no dispute between us and the UN. So we can't believe the UN, but we can believe the UN, and either way, the media can't come in. So, you know, you have to look at the facts, you know, and we argue all the time. I'd love to. Let the journalists in and we can get to the bottom of it. I want to say, I know it's not your decision, Danny Danon, but I do know the Israeli government decision is very deliberate and it is a suppression of the rights of journalists to do their job and operate freely in Gaza, which is supposedly a place with a ceasefire. So this argument that is to protect the health of the journalists. It is bullshit. You know it and I know it. And what I'd love to hear is one time when you come on, where you announce to me that you've been instructed by the Israeli government to say that actually journalists can now go in and do their job. And at that moment, we can start to independently verify what is really going on there and what has gone on there. And the longer the Israeli government refuses to allow journalists in, the more my suspicion, never mind anybody else's, grows that they must be because you have something to hide. Otherwise, you'd let them in. First, I think that they will happen. But before it happens, you have to realize that we are still waiting for the disarmament of Hamas. And when you look at their next steps, you look at your angle of allowing journalists to come in. I think more urgent is to speak about reconstruction and other issues, but it will not happen without disarmament. That is the key issue. And I hope it will happen sooner than later because there is no future for Gaza or for Israel if Hamas will stay in Gaza. If they will stay in power, if they will still hold their weapons. Daniel Zanon, I always appreciate you coming on Uncensored. Thank you very much. Thank you. The case which shocked and divided America ended on Friday with a mistrial. Lindsay Clancy, a former nurse who killed her three children, faces legal limbo after the judge declared the jury to be deadlocked. Joining me to discuss this is Dr Phil McGraw, author, broadcaster and psychologist. Dr Phil, welcome back to Uncensored. I can't remember many stories, in recent times that have divided people so vehemently as this one. And the dividing line really comes down to one thing, which is everybody accepts that this woman killed her children. The question is whether she was driven to do so by postpartum psychosis. In other words, after giving birth, she effectively lost her mind, didn't know what she was doing. She didn't know what she was doing. And therefore cannot be guilty of a cold-blooded murder. It is something that was beyond her control. And it's that dividing line which many are not accepting. They say, look, three kids were killed here. Of course it's murder. Where do you sit with this? Well, I sit first, as you just rightly pointed out, Pearson. Thank you for bringing it up. Cora, Dawson and Callan lost their lives here. And, you know, I think it's a very, very important thing. And you're one of the few that really mentions that in light of the trial. These three children, their lives have been taken from them. They'll never grow up. They'll never have children. They'll never run and play in sports and go to school and all of that. That's the real tragedy here. And the question is, who's accountable for this? And if you start unpacking it, there are a lot of people that have ownership and accountability. Clearly, they died at her hand. Look. Postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis are two very different animals. Postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency. And when it occurs, it requires immediate psychiatric hospitalization and separation from the children until such a time as they have been determined to be safe by independent experts. And, you know, look. The trials are not teachable moments in American society about mental illness. Unfortunately, they're not. They're used as weapons of persuasion and trial, and they had hired guns on each side that came in and argued these from different points of view. The case is not, did she have a mental illness? Clearly, she did. Who would kill their children in their right mind? that's not the issue. The issue is, was it to the point that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong? Or was it to the point that she simply could not conform to the law? And it really comes down to, was this an irresistible impulse or an impulse not resisted? And that's often the case. And I've treated these cases in the past. And people need to realize there are red flags you can notice, red flags you can recognize and react to. This is not something you adjust medications for. It is a psychiatric emergency. If you had been on that jury, we know that one male juror held out. And that was why, in the end, there was no verdict and it was declared a mistrial, because they couldn't agree. Given everything we saw in this trial, Phil, if you had been on that jury. would you have convicted her of murder? I probably would have recognized that she was unable to conform to the law and sent her to a psychiatric facility. So probably not guilty by reason of mental defect or disease. And people think, what does that mean? Well, she doesn't go home. Andrea Yates, in 2002, was found not guilty by reason of insanity in Houston, Texas. That's been 25 years. She's still in a psychiatric facility, locked up down there. This is a—nobody gets a pass here, and there's nothing to celebrate here. I don't understand how this is being celebrated by some coming to her support. Well, that's the other part of this, Phil, I wanted to mention, talk about with you, is we've seen a really disturbing pattern, I think, in recent years. You look at the Luigi Mangione example. Look at the Boston Marathon bombers who were put on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, right, as if they're rock stars. This lionization, hero worship of people who commit despicable crimes. I just find it incredible. It's incredibly distasteful, but a real symptom of the kind of social media era we live in. What do you make of it? I think it's really misguided. Where were the people outside the courthouse holding vigil for the three children? Where were the people that were demonstrating for this tragic loss of life, regardless of how it came about, whether she was unable to— whether she was able to comport herself, or whether she was not? Where were all of the people demonstrating for these three children in the tragic loss of life that they had? I think it's really misguided, and I think it's the shrill voices from the extreme that take over the narrative, and sometimes the loudest voice is not the one we should listen to. It's the voice that we measure, and common sense tells us, "This was a tragic loss of life." It's the voice that we measure, and common sense tells us, "This was a tragic loss of life." This woman, was she planning this? Was it premeditated? People are debating all that. The question was, if you've never had—and people that have will know—and if you've never treated someone with a strong delusional disorder, penetrating that is very, very difficult. I've treated people with delusions. I've had delusional disorders when I was in private practice for months and months and months, and been unable to penetrate that delusional system. She had, reportedly, an authoritarian voice that was both authoritarian and authoritative. She assigned credibility and power to the voice, telling her, "You must save your children." She felt like she was doing the right thing, and that's a powerful influence. If you've never dealt with that, it's hard to understand how persuasive that can be. There are two other parts of this. I think one is how heavily medicated she was, and secondly, there's a big debate now about the access that mothers like her have to appropriate help and treatment for this postpartum depression and/or psychosis. America remains an unbelievably heavily medicated society. I think I said last week, and it's an incredible fact that is worth repeating, that 80% of the world's painkillers are consumed by Americans. It's a startling statistic. Do you think here that part of the problem was how heavily medicated she was? I mean, it was being said that this was destroying her mind. And secondly, do you think if she'd got better, more appropriate help from the medical profession, from the system, if you like, we could have avoided what ended up happening? I think it was definitely avoidable. There were screaming red flags here, and I think she was undertreated and overmedicated. And those two things could happen simultaneously. Look, medicine has become a high-volume business, right? In order for these physicians to make the kind of living that they want to make, they've got to turn them and burn them. They've got to get them in and get them out. And as a result, so many don't take the time to really get into the patient's history. And when you're dealing with psychiatric disorders, you have to rely heavily on patient self-report. And if you have a non-reliable historian, you're at the mercy of what they tell you, but they don't take the time to and we don't have the system that allows us to see what other physicians are treating the patient, what other medications are being prescribed. There needs to be a clearinghouse where you can see what all has this person been prescribed in the last 30, 60, 90 days. She had six clinicians and 13 medications, and one of them does have a side effect of seriously agitating bipolar disorder if it's not given with a mood stabilizer. And there are black box warnings on some of these medications. So was there polypharmacy involved here? I highly suspect there was. Did we have someone that was being run through a gamut of pills being thrown at them? I think clearly that's part of the problem here. This is a woman that was a sophisticated individual. She was a labor delivery. She was a nurse and she did ask for help. She did go voluntarily admit herself. She did things that you would hope someone that was hearing what she was hearing in her head would do. But I don't think the system, it's not any one thing, but I don't think the system did its job here. That doesn't excuse her. These are reasons, not excuses. But clearly this was a woman that fell through the cracks of the system. Yeah. I completely agree. Dr. Phil, as always, such a wise contribution. Thank you very much. Thank you for talking about this. We need to keep a spotlight on it and people need to look for the red flags where people are talking about harming themselves or their children. It is. Phil, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Piers. Talk soon. Joining me now is Mark Garagos. He's the criminal defense attorney. Mark, great to have you back on Uncensored. Such a complex case. Such a divisive case here, but from a pure legal standpoint, was the judge's decision in the end to order a mistrial the correct one? Well, it certainly was based on what he had at the time. I mean, it came close to, I think, him having to remove the juror. When the foreperson, the foreperson was very sophisticated because the note, and I'm talking about what at least was reported both in the courtroom on the record and what was talked about with the Supreme Judicial Council, their highest court, was that basically this person, the lone holdout, had a doubt, but was not applying the reasonable doubt. When Reddington went to the highest court, he also said that the person was biased and the bias was against somebody who had. Had a mental disability. That was a. To my mind, that was a stretch, it was clever, and I think based on that record, was not good enough to remove the juror. However, if we get a juror, or one or more of them, who now does a declaration or talks about the fact that this juror had some other motive or agenda, even if it was something to do with the prosecution's. With the prosecution's use of mortal sin, you'll remember that the first time they asked the grandmother whether she knew it was a mortal sin. under Catholicism. The second time, the expert volunteered that. If the defense gets either one of those things, they may have this unique situation that you have in America where the U.S. Supreme Court says, if when the mistrial is declared, it's because you were goaded into it by the prosecution, that you're once in jeopardy and it can't be tried again. Fascinating. If you had asked Dr. Philbiss, I'll repeat the question to you, if you had been on that jury, would you have convicted Lindsay Clancy of murder or not? No, certainly not a first degree murder. I think that the biggest problem and the reason the prosecutors seemed so tone deaf to everybody, including myself who watched them, is it was severely overcharged. This was not a first degree murder case. I think they did that tactically. They did it in a way that was not a first degree murder case. Because under a quirk of Massachusetts law, apparently you cannot waive jury, meaning it could not be a bench trial if it's first degree murder, which is not the case in other jurisdictions. So if that's the case, they were trying so hard to keep this as a jury trial because they also were tone deaf to the fact that jurors were not going to hate this woman. I know that this is hard for people to understand. But if you go back five or six weeks ago, people did nothing but talk about how much animus the jury was going to have for her. And I don't think people understand human nature when they say that. First of all, she's sitting there in a wheelchair. She tried to seriously kill herself. They didn't. They took that or they diminished that, number one. Number two, her mother-in-law, her ex-husband, both got on the stand and forgave her. So whose interest is the DA? I mean, this goes into the juror psychology. Whose interest are they vindicating if the people who are closest, the people who are most impacted? As a grandfather, I can't even imagine forgiving somebody who would harm my grandkids. And here you have the grandmother basically saying she was a wonderful mother. So it really ignores the kind of dynamic that was happening. But Pierce, I'm going to ask you one question because I've had this argument. You had said in the previous run-up to this interview that people were universally agreeing that she did this act. The problem with that is if you're here in America and you're around any females under the age of 35 or 40, and obviously I've done no survey, but anecdotally, there is a movement of people who do not believe that she was guilty of this crime. I mean, you're right to pick me up on that because even as I said it, I was aware there is this weird subsection of people that just think that she didn't do it at all, which is obviously for the birds, but is a reality and also is a kind of weird lack of reality. And we're seeing more and more of this now. We live in an era, social media driven, fake news driven, AI driven, where it's very, very hard now for people to convince people of the truth. If they get it in the head, there's a certain narrative at play here. And I've seen the sites online where people are peddling all this stuff. And a lot of people buy into it, don't they? And they won't be dissuaded. I had forgotten about the Boston Marathon bomber when you mentioned it, that they were on the cover of Rolling Stones. But when you combine that, you don't have to go any farther than Brian Kohlberg or Robinson. Many of these cases that you see that even 10 or 20 years ago, it would have been unfathomable for to have a constituency that was that was arguing this. And I'm not talking about people who have electrodes implanted in their brains affected by low flying aircraft. I'm talking about rational, logical, highly intelligent people who will make a forceful argument and believe it. It's really kind of a, that's my takeaway from all of this. I mean, I agree with Phil and you with the fact that the kids, like I said, I just can't even get your head around it. But there is this other story. And I, as a criminal defense lawyer in my day job, am kind of astonished by what we've seen in the last couple of years. Yeah, I completely agree. Just finally, what happens now legally? Is there definitely going to be a new trial? I mean, and if there is, how do they find anyone in America now who doesn't know all about the story? It's such a great question. And I will readily admit I deviate from a lot of my colleagues. I went through and explained that kind of once in jeopardy. And that's a, it's a very kind of thin read to, to get to. But I think if something, and with the, and Reddington added another lawyer, I assume it was an appellate lawyer onto this team. I think with the right motion, and you already saw that the prosecutor, the elected DA, Tim Cruz, who Reddington kind of went after and said, I crushed Tim Cruz afterwards in the press conference. It's a way to win friends and influence DAs. But I think that this is ripe for a deal. And I've been there countless times where I've hung the jury the first time. And I'm, I always feel like I've got an advantage because I, they've shot their best shots, so to speak. But in the second time around, before you get to trial, I think they may come to their senses. And I mean the prosecution, because like I said, yeah, I think any objective observer would tell you that this was overcharged. Every prosecutor, ex-prosecutor, that I know says the same thing. And if that's the case, this is the prototypical case that should be resolved. Also remember Patrick Clancy's lawyer, the father, his lawyer came out right after the verdict, right after that press conference and issued a statement that putting the family through this again would be excruciating. And it is. So what would, what would the deal look like in, you know, in the most likely scenario of a deal? What is that deal? I would, I would think that the way to navigate this would be a psychiatric commitment. And when, if she was found NGI, basically that's what she would get anyway. And as you, I think astutely pointed out with Andrea Yates, she hasn't gone anywhere. And the, the, and some of the stuff Phil was talking about, this was a psychiatric emergency. Part of the problem, and I've, I've had this for so many years, not in the postpartum psychosis situation, but when people are in the throes of one of these psychiatric emergencies, what's interesting to me is when they get the proper help and the proper kind of calibration of the medication, and they're in a psychiatric institution of some kind, they can get kind of what's interesting to me is when you drag them back into the criminal justice system, they're normally, this is the exception in this case, normally they're housed back in the whatever respective county jail and they disintegrate immediately. So it's kind of this endless circle jerk, if you will, of the psychiatric and the criminal justice system. It also points out kind of writ large, one of the problems with the US criminal justice system, which is literally 80% of cases that get processed through the system have a mental health component and whether it's Medicaid self-medication, whether it's drugs, whether it's ends up manifesting in homelessness or anything else, the, one of the, the last three sheriffs in LA County, for instance, have told me they run the largest mental institution in the world, which is the LA County jail. So it's not something that a criminal defense lawyer sees. It's something that law enforcement sees. It's just a pernicious problem that we have in the US. Yeah. Mark Garagos, as always, brilliant. Thank you very much. Thank you, Piers. Good to see you. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.