Mehdi Hasan vs Nancy Mace Plus Andrew Tate Lawyers

Not anything and allowing me to speak is basically a part of Sharia law. You're like, "Jihad is Jason. Do you not respect women? Do you like dogs?" I don't even know why you're even in this country meta anymore. You're not just bigoted, you're mad. Stop this! Say you send them to buy you alcohol at two o'clock in the morning. Why did you ask for two women to leave a grocery store you racist? Now you're smearing me and defaming me on your news. You want two Muslim women? I am not an alcoholic. I just wonder, were you drunk at the time? That's not true. And now I'm rich. I can buy anything I want. And there's nothing to buy. You know what? Most of this is bullshit. I'm not sure it's all bullshit. Here's as you put it. They were creating a bogus world of Uber luxury and glamour and so on. I'd say exaggeration is probably fair. I'd say bullshit. Maybe not. It's a difficult time to be a Republican strategist as the US prepares for pivotal midterm elections. Candidates can no longer rely on the strategy of doubling down on Trump or on the many common sense crusades which proves so popular in 2024. But they are betting that one page of original Trump playbook can still make a dent. Radical Islam, they argue, is a great threat to United States. And it's now finding common cause with another old foe. Communism. That's why in a nationwide election so much of their focus is on Mandani, on Michigan's Abdul-Elsaid and on the streamer Hassan Piker. Two of these men are not on the ballot. All three have faced intense scrutiny for their past comments on 9/11 among other things. And Republican senators to take crews teed up the whole fight as they see it in his RNC address. Communists and Islamists coming together and sweeping over the Democrat Party. They are united because they share the same enemies. They hate Christians. They hate Jews. They hate capitalism. They hate the Constitution and they hate America. So do they have a point? Other Democrats really beholden to a new Islamic communist alliance and other voters buying it. Do you want to meet to debate all this? Is Mehdi Hassan? Founders to say on news. And the Republican congresswoman Nancy Mays. Well, welcome to both of you. Nancy Mays, a few weeks ago on X, you posted the following. Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a threat to both national security and our Republic. I mean, it's hard to see, I would argue, a better example of brazen Islamophobia than that, isn't it? As a woman, I will tell you, peers, I am terrified of radical Islam. I've seen what they've done in foreign countries. When a woman shows her hair being stoned at death, being put to death, that's not the kind of ideology that I want to see here grow in the United States. And look at this, peers, days before the 25th anniversary of 9/11. We had the mayor of New York City give his pen that he signed the Rembrandt's order over to a guy that defended a member of al-Qaeda. I mean, to see that happen 25 years later, to see animal sacrifice as being approved by a local a city council in Michigan, the words al-Wahu Akbar being "death to America" screamed on the streets of America. That kind of thing is going on and it's growing and we've got to put a stop to it. Right, many of us are, and you're response to that. Couple of things, peers, thanks for having me on. Number one, it's interesting you didn't play the clip from Ted Cruz at the RNC where he names Mamdani, and I've dual all say it. And people in the crowd shout, kill them, shoot them. They actually shout out death threats. So that's how dangerous this rhetoric has become from the Republican Party when people like Ted Cruz and Nancy Mays, we saw an attack on a mosque in San Diego in May of this year, peers. I came on and talked to you about it at the time. Three Muslim worshipers killed in the middle of California by two neo-Nazis who were spouting the kind of stuff that Ted Cruz and Nancy Mays spat. It's very, very dangerous to say stuff like this in this sweeping, bigoted way. We know it's dangerous. We know that if you say it about another minority, it's dangerous. You wouldn't say that Jews should be banned from public office. And it's interesting that the congresswoman started her comment saying she's afraid of radical Islam. Lots of people are afraid of radical Islam. I'm afraid of radical Islam. I don't want to be killed by a Muslim terrorist like anyone else. But that's not what she said. She spent the last few weeks, just the last few weeks, forget the last few years, attacking Muslims in general. Right? She has said that no Muslim American should hold public office in this country. They're all Trojan horses. That includes Republicans. Dr. Oz is Donald Trump's head of Medicaid and Medicare at the HHS. Should he not be allowed to hold public office? Is Dr. Oz a Trojan horse? Because he's Muslim and she said no Muslims should hold that role. She said that not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. She tweeted that. That's not true, obviously. The people in the IRA would be shocked to hear that. The Hindus in the Tamil Tigers, the Jewish settlers on the West Bank, the Christian domestic terrorists, according to the FBI, who attacked the Capitol on January 6. The idea that only Muslims are terrorists is an absurd statement as well. And the worst of all is it back in, I think it was in June. The congressman tweeted, "I stand with Dasha." Dasha killed Patrick as a woman in Texas, who went into a Texas grocery store, stopped two Muslim American women doing their shopping and started shouting at them, telling them to get out of the country. They don't belong here. They should go back to their Islamic country. They're not welcome in Christian America. Nancy Mace tweeted, "I stand with Dasha." Which makes her race as big. This is not about radical Islam. This is about eradicated almost the American for public life. So why are you asking to Muslim American women to leave the country? Nancy Mace, deal with what I just said. Before you attacked me, deal with what I just said. You said, "I stand with Dasha." Do you stand with Dasha? Do you stand with Muslim American women? Well, you were Muslim American women, release. Don't respect women. I know you don't want Muslim American women. You're the one who's supposed to tax on women in a Texas grocery store, because I'm not going to let you down slide. I said something very specific. Two women in Texas, you call for them to leave the country. Why? Why did you ask Muslim American women to tax? No, you're not. To leave the country to stand with Dasha. It doesn't get the quality to women. You were Muslim American women, removed from Texas. Why? I'm asking you a simple question. Why do you want two Muslim American women and doctorals removed from Texas? Can you answer that? I had it. Are you going to let the women speak? I mean, you're like Jihadist, Jason. Do you like dogs? I can't even understand where you're going here. But do you want two women to leave a Texas grocery store? Yes, that's right. Why did you ask for two women to leave a grocery store, you racist? Why? I'm not racist. I'm American. I'm America first. Dasha. Why do you support having two Americans removed from a grocery store? All right. There are so many. There are so many. You can keep that. Don't talk over each other. Nancy Mason. Okay, Nancy, aren't a respond to Medi's question? Well, I mean, this is just an example. Medi's anger toward me and the lack of respect as a woman, not even allowing me to speak. It's basically part of Sharia law. That's my point here, Medi. You don't respect women that have opposite views. And Dasha isn't the only Christian woman who's had an interruption or been accosted by Muslim women. I lived in Atlanta over a decade ago. This is five, 15 years ago. She did the assault. I was nursing an infant in the grocery store mind in my own business, and two Muslim women came up to me and asked me to leave. This has been going on for over a decade and it's only getting worse. And I'm not going to sit here and allow someone to hypocrite like Medi Hassan, who said some awful things. I don't even know why you're even in this country Medi anymore. You said after a plane crash that make American planes, you know, crash again. You said some really disgusting, hypocritical things. Even after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And you know, that was a bad joke about Donald Trump crashing a plane. On your program, I see it. You still have an answer to the question. Why do you support removing doctorals? I'm not going to let you fill a buster. If Piers wants to let you fill a buster, that's fine. I said something specific. I quoted you and you've not responded. Why does doctorals have to leave his job? Piers, you want to ask that you don't answer me? Piers, maybe she'll only want me to wait a minute. Piers, why are you asking? Hang on, there's doctorals. Hang on. Honestly, you ask, you're a white man. Maybe she'll ask, all right, let me try and wrestle back some vestiges of control here. Because when you both talk over each other, no one can hear a damn thief. The weather is turning. The leaves are browning. The rain is certainly pouring. And as someone begins to savvy fade in the rear view mirror, it's time to look for a silver lining in the changing of the seasons. My personal nomination is the cozy earth bubble cuddle blanket and the bamboo bedsheet set. The moment you pull on this blanket, you will be overcome by its weighty softness. It may in fact cause a battle but custody in your home. As to those legendary bamboo sheets, there are a game changer for anyone who sleeps hot or alongside somebody else who does. You'll notice a difference immediately with the right balance of coolness and comfort all the way through the night. And honestly, as the evenings get darker and colder, there's no better time to kid out your bedroom and your sofa for some cozy nights ahead. There's a 100 night trial and a 10 year warranty so there's genuinely no risk in trying it. Go to cozyearth.com and use code peers but up to 20% of home and sleep wear. That's cozyearth.com code peers. And remember to tell them that I sent you. Many raised an interesting point. You know, it's Dr. Oz. You say every single Muslim, not radical Muslim, but every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse. Obviously Dr. Oz holds a public office. Would you want him to pull to the. as a threat to national security and our Republic? -Well, I didn't say him after I should be deported. I do think that people that believe in radicals-- -You said every single Muslim. -I said I was talking about-- -It's every single Muslim. -I was talking about elected officials being Trojan horses because we're seeing towns take an over, starting in Michigan, going in in Minnesota. -Right, but if-- sorry, but just to be clear on this, but to be clear on this, if Doctor Oz was to run for, you know, to be a senator or to run for president or something, you would not want him to be allowed in Pennsylvania. -He's not. -No, no, but I'm talking about hypothetically. -I'm talking about hypothetically. -But Nancy, Nancy Mace, Nancy Mace, don't talk over me now. Don't talk over me now. It's a very simple question. You didn't say every single radical Muslim. You said every single Muslim. That's all of them. -I know. I said elected. -I think every Muslim, I said elected Muslim. -You didn't say elected. -Every single Muslim. -You're a live-holding public. -You did not say elected. -Stop lying. -You've been caught lying. -But you go back and caught my-- -No. -Quote my tweet, Mette, as I'm sure you will. -You're lying. -I'm not lying. -You're lying. -Hang on, please. -Hang on, please. -You're the one that makes me crazy to you. -I will now. -Please start talking over each other. Guys, no one can hear this. Let me read it again, so there's no room for ambiguity. -Thank you. -What she actually posed to was every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a threat to both national security and the racist. -You stand by that Nancy Mason. -It is. Holding public office is an elected position, Mette. Do you need a dictionary? Come on. -That's what it's in reference to. -Oh, so cabinet members are not public officials? Nancy Mason, so hold on. Marco Rubio is not a-- is Marco Rubio not a public official? He's not elected. -He's not a radical Islamist. -Are you really going to pass it off? -Right now. -Nice try. You just lied again. You just said every public official is elected. I caught you out again in a second lie. Marco Rubio is a public official. You don't want to walk it back. Everyone can see your bigger dreams. That's all I said. It's Rubio a public official. You just lied to Pears Morgan and said a public official is elected. You got caught. You got caught being racist. You know the best part of you not wanting to walk it back. It's five years ago. You weren't at this batshit crazy racist. You went on CNN. Pears, what's interesting? It's in 2021. Congresswoman Mace went on CNN. After two of her colleagues, Marjorie Taylor, but called Ilhan Oma, a member of the jihad squad. She went on CNN and said they were racist. They were disgusting. She suggested they were religious bigots, and she wasn't. She suggested they're grifters. Ironically, five years later, she's the racist grifter. And now MTG's calling out her racism. We've gone full circle. She doesn't even believe what she's saying. Why is it so much weird that what she's saying now is racist? Five years ago, she said, "Rama Dan La Barra." Let her respond. Let her respond. Please stop talking at the same time. What I was descending. There's no point. Nancy, there's no point having this debate. If you both just shout over each other all the time. So Nancy, respond to what Medi just said. Well, I was defending someone's first amendment right to wear whatever piece of clothing they want to wear. Same thing with the words that you speak. Everyone has the first amendment right to say what they want to say or where what they want to wear. Now, fast forward five years later and we're seeing some of these radical things happening in our communities where people are pushing back on, sharia law type of things where there's now animal sacrifices in Michigan, where the mayor of New York City days before 9/11 is giving a pen to a guy that defended Al Qaeda, even the governor of New York, was in a head jab speaking to only men in a mosque days before the 25th anniversary of 9/11. I find this offensive and I'm going to continue to speak out about it. I think it's gotten worse over the last five years. I think the political division is also made it worse. But we have to have people are going to speak out and push back against this radical thing that's happening and starting to happen in towns across the country more so than ever before. Okay, Medi. Can I respond? Yeah, so it's interesting. She talks about sharia law. There's no sharia law. It's a boogeyman that the Republicans tried 15 years ago and now they're doing it again. Why? Because gas prices are high. Nobody trusts them. They're losing in the polls. They're going to lose in the midterms. They fall back on racism, bigotry and sharia law. Which sharia law? Zoran Mamdani and Abdul Al Sayed support sharia law. I'm pretty sure they're more pro gay than Nancy Mase. They're more pro transgender than Nancy Mase. She has horrifically bigoted things to say about gay and transgender people. So the idea that they're pushing sharia law is absurd. The idea that Kathy Hockles shouldn't wear a hijab in a mosque. Ivanka Trump wore a hijab when she went into a mosque. I don't remember Nancy Mase attacking Ivanka Trump for wearing a hijab. I don't remember attacking Donald Trump for wearing a kipper when he went to a Jewish institution. So this is all absurd. Picking on Muslims to get votes. It's purely cynical. Because as I pointed out and she avoided it five years ago, she called much less rhetoric, much less bigotry. It really is. From MTV and Boba. She called it racist. Can I finish it? Why are we talking over each other? Why can't I speak? Do you know that Muslims speak? I haven't finished yet. I didn't interrupt you. Let me finish my point. I mean, and then you can actually answer. If you just spent the last 15 minutes avoiding everything I said. You said, you said, keep talking over me. Everyone can see you doing it. You said every single public official in America shouldn't be Muslim. I pointed out that Dr. Aziz, you said he's not elected. I said, Marco Ruby is not elected. You dodged that point. So you got caught there. You got caught lying saying every terrorist is a Muslim. When we all know that's not true, everyone knows there are non-Muslim terrorists. Look at what's happening on the West Bank right now, which you support. And last. And they're also Hindu. They're also Hindu. They're all of that. They're also Hindu and Christian and Jewish. What's really interesting is pears. If I can finish my point. Pears. If I can finish my point, pears. We're not being talked over. Pears. If we can do the next one. I'm a silent when she spoke. Then you can respond. She did not let me speak. I agree. And then you can try and respond. Okay, so let me make my point. She still hasn't responded as to why she supports a woman in a Texas grocery store attacking two Muslims, telling them to get out of the country. Two Muslim or a woman doing their shopping. Could be my wife or daughter. She supports attacking them. She supports banning Muslims from public office. And it's all cynical pears because they're losing in the polls. This is all about elections. She's doing it because she wanted to win. Ironically, it didn't even help her. She came fifth in South Carolina. She came last in the governor's race. And Donald Trump didn't endorse her. Donald Trump said she's a nasty, terrible woman who's untrustworthy for the first time in my life. I agree with Donald Trump. She is an untrustworthy nasty woman. Donald Trump did not say that when I was running for governor. That's not what he did. Yes, he did. Exactly. He said that when you were running for Congress. He said when you ran for governor, he endorsed your opponent. And you put out. You put out an AI video. You're so desperate. Pretending he endorsed you. I talked to the White House. Why did you put out an AI video? Let me ask you. Let me ask you. When you did that, you were talking about it. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. You want to go see it. It's a fake video of you and Trump. I want to ask. I want to ask a separate question about what's being in the knees this week. I'm sure that was animated. Maddie, this is stupid. Like your argument doesn't make any logical sense. It's a fake AI video on the day he endorsed your opponent. Everyone wondered why you did it. Trump endorsed your opponent. He didn't endorse your opponent. You lied and said he hadn't endorsed your opponent. I just wondered. Were you drunk at the time? What was going on? Why would you post an AI video? Now you've gone mad. Now you've gone mad. You're not just big in it. You're mad. See, this is what happens when you put out a crazy video. A woman. Now you're smearing me and defaming me. You were two Muslim women ejected from a store in a grocery store. You haven't addressed that yet. I do not get drunk. I never said you were. And that's disgusting. I never said your former staffer said it. Your former staffer said you drink a lot. I never said that. I never said that. I never said that. Your former staffer told you your magazine. You drink all day long. I didn't say that. I said you drunk when you posted an AI video. But your staffers. Your staffers say you send them to buy you alcohol at two o'clock in the morning. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true, Maddie. I don't know if it's true or not. But that's what they said. Well, it's not true. Who said that? It's not true. Who said that? I never said that. They said that. Your team. Nobody said that. Your former com's director. Your former com's director said it. It's never happened. Your former communications down to say you asked for it to go get drinks for you. It was made up out of. It's a liquor store while you're doing town halls. It's not true. No, no, there's a name on it. I can give you the name. You want me to give you the name? Take it up with her. Don't take it up with me. Her name is Natalie Johnson. She says that you drank so much. She'd have interns and junior staff. Run to Congressional liquor during the work day. So she could invite during town halls. That's what she said. That's not true. Take it up with your former com's director. She doesn't like you either. Donald Trump doesn't like you. She doesn't like you. And Muslims don't like you for being racist towards us. That is very disgusting. Mettie and not, not, not true. That's just it. That very disgusting attack on a woman who's trying to debate you about issues. Okay. I didn't say it was true. Somebody said that's what your staff said. That are not true. That's what you're doing right now. You personally attacked me from the moment. This began. You said, you said I'm jihad adjacent to the beginning of the show. You lie. You said, you called me jihad. You called me jihad adjacent. So please touch your pal somewhere else. You started the person. for people like me, okay, why for my kids to be attacking me again, trying wrestle back control here. I want to ask one more question. Yes, it was a bad joke. It was a bad joke. You're a bigotry that you don't apologize for. You're a bigotry. I have got one more question. I'm not going to bother if you carry on. And sexist. I have one more question I'd like to ask if it's not too much trouble for you to stop shouting the pair of you long enough to answer it. But we had the big story this week of Mackelmore, The Rapper, being dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour for speaking out about the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, the New England Patriots owner, Robert Kraft, basically organised a boycott among stadium owners over this. It seemed to me pretty obvious if he'd been saying stuff that was pro-Israeli there would have been no issue with Robert Kraft, but because it was pro-Palestinian even though it wasn't that incendiary what he was saying, all hell has broken loose. What does this tell you about where we are now in the discourse about this? It tells me that the United States right now under Trump is in a very authoritarian place where free speeches under attack journalists are getting arrested, and of course the greatest victims of authoritarianism of cancel culture, so-called "the Republicans obsessed over for years" have always been Palestinians or supporters of Palestine. They're always the first people to get fired from Hollywood to be silenced on stage. I'm glad a lot of other musicians have backed Mackelmore after Ed Sheeran's cowardice and after Robert Kraft's censorship, Robert Kraft being a right-wing pro-Israel billionaire whose name appears in the Epstein files, who says Israel is one of his biggest issues, he comes along and silences this artist. I mean, what kind of world we are and where artists can't speak their minds. As you said, it was nothing incendiary at all. He said, "Free Palestine." He said, "He loves his Jewish brothers and sisters. He's against a genocide. And the problem now is, is that you have big money in American politics, which is deciding who can speak and who can't, who can get elected and who can't. Robert Kraft decides who gets to speak in a concert. A pack which spent $30 million in Michigan trying to feed Abdullah Sen. I think has given over 100 grand to Nancy Mace. A pack is trying to decide who should get elected to Congress. You know, we're losing our freedoms in this country." Nancy Mace, did you see a problem in what Mackelmore said? No, I mean, this is the market, doing what the market does and deciding what needs to happen with the consumers that it provides entertainment to. And that's his right to be able to do that. I'm just glad that someone is pushing it back against the false narrative about genocide and Gaza. There's no evidence of genocide in Gaza. And pushing back against people want all Jews dead. I mean, this is a very dangerous movement. Synagogues are being targeted. Jewish people can't leave their homes because of the way that they're being targeted. And I'm glad to see that. He did push back against this and stood up for Jews, stood up for America, stood up for Israel. And I think I got more than 100,000, I think it was 138,000. And clearly, it wasn't, it wasn't enough. I hope you're proud. I'm America first. Peace. I do have interest. I don't know if you do. Mackelmore doesn't decide to. I do hope Mackelmore doesn't decide to soon, Nancy Mace. She just suggested he wants to kill all Jews, which is an absurd thing. Of course, Mackelmore doesn't believe that. No one believes that. You say, you say I'm glad people are pushing back. Literally, you cannot tell the truth for 60 seconds. It is crazed. Well, Mackelmore is the person who was silenced. He doesn't want to kill Jews, nor does anyone on the, no one is fighting the Palestinian justice. And as for the evidence of genocide, as for the evidence of genocide, let me, let me, let me educate you. There's not. You are a liar, Mettie. Period. Point blank. You can't even tell the truth. The genocide, quote, unquote, narrative is one that's backed. Peer, let me remind you of yours. I've done it before. And I know you and I have this conversation. The vast majority of human rights groups, including Israeli human rights groups, states of genocide, the vast majority of genocide scholars, including the international association of genocide, scholars, states of genocide, all of the UN investigators that looked into this, including the independent commission of inquiry, says it's a genocide. The former Deputy Head of Mossad says it's a genocide. The former Prime Minister of Israel says it's a war of extermination. The evidence is overwhelming. We're seeing Palestinians being killed every day. Over a thousand Palestinians killed just since the so-called ceasefire, let alone before it. So you don't want to call it a genocide. That's fine. But most experts who've looked in it say it is a genocide. People are being mass killed. And you don't care about the death of 20,000 Palestinian children. That's fine. We already know that your racist, your erases towards most of the Palestinians. You don't want anyone in your country around the world in places like Nigeria, then in Gaza, period. And that's where our priority should be. That's just not true. The numbers don't, okay? We're close. You want to have that. There's a Christian Nigeria is killed. That's a fact, Medi. And over 18,000 churches have been bombed. I'm not, I'm not in favor of killing anyone anywhere. I'm not like you. I don't support illegal foreign wars or take money from APEC. I'm against all killing, but the idea that Palestinians are allowed to be killed because you get money from APEC to support that war, isn't it? Well, my record up the next time you debate me is you're not. Nice trying. Nice trying. Nice trying. Let me fact check you. I'm so glad you mentioned that. I'm so glad you did. Because of course, when the war began, you supported Donald Trump. You refused to vote for the war powers out. You said, let him finish the job. So I'm glad you've caught up with the rest of us. Maybe you'll come up with the rest of us on your bigotry. Before they have to declare war, before they have to come to Congress, every president has been given at least 90 days to come to Congress of declare war. We're now at seven months, and now it's time for the president to come to Congress. I'm glad you come around. I'm glad you realized you were wrong. We've given Trump the same grace that we've given President Obama, everybody else before him. And now is the time to do that. That is the honest answer and the honest vote, which is what I took. I'm not going to sit here and spew lies like you are. You really like it, Donald Trump. We finally, let me just ask you, finally, many about this push by Thomas Massey to impeach Pegseth for the illegal, as he puts it, the illegal war in Iran. Interestingly, he's going after Pegseth and not President Trump, who you would assume might be a bigger target for this, given he was the one that took the actual decision. But what, I mean, obviously it probably hasn't got much chance of success this, but what does it tell you about what may happen post the midterms? Should the Republicans, as many think may happen, if they lose, you know, both the House and the Senate, are we going to just be stuck then into endless stuff like this and what happens? No, it's a great question. I think that he made a very strategic move, which is probably more support for impeaching Pegseth than Trump. I don't think either will get a majority, but the reality of a lot of Republicans are very upset with Pegseth. I think most Republicans, I'm pretty sure Nancy may, even if she doesn't say it, know he has never qualified this weekend Fox host with a drinking problem to run the Pentagon. He's done a horrific job of it. The Iran War is a disaster with seven months into a war with no end in sight after the President promised us no forever wars. He's murdering people out in the Caribbean, out in the Caribbean, blowing up boats. We don't even know who are on those boats. Double tap strikes. Of course, there's a huge case for impeaching them, but to take your underlying question peers, I hope that the Democrats, when they control Congress, if they control Congress will actually have substantive investigations, not just performative votes, but we need to know, quote unquote, or even literally where the bodies are buried. We need to understand what's happened with the Epstein files, what's happened in the Caribbean, what happened with Iran, what's happened with all the corruption that we're seeing from this Trump administration and all the self-dealing. That's what Democrats need to hold hearings on and actually investigate because Mike Johnson has given up on his job as being any kind of check or balance or third branch of government. Nancy, may I see your response? Mike Johnson is in a wonderful job as Speaker of the House, and while I have stood with Thomas Massey on the Epstein files and the Epstein petition, I do not stand with him on this publicity stunt to go after Pete Hegseth, and I hope, many that he sues you for defamation. That is a gross thing to say. You're just using the alcohol, excuse me, or anybody on the right right now, which is ridiculous. But I support him. I think he's doing the best job that he can. These are difficult times, is why I voted for the War Powers Resolution last night. We are seeing gas prices up, grocery prices up. The Feds may hike rates today, which will mean for every hardworking American, their mortgage is going to be more expensive, car loans are going to be more expensive, diesel is going to go up. I mean, these are real problems, and I blame both Republicans and Democrats for the debt that we're in, for the deficit we have to see every year, for what's happening with the cost of living. I represent a congressional district in the fastest growing state in the nation right now. And when I got my ass kicked in the governor's race, I talked to a lot of seniors while I was running. And hearing story after story of seniors being kicked out of their homes, that they paid for their entire lives, hoping to retire in this home that they bought that can't afford it because taxes are too high because the cost of groceries is too much. They can't make, they can't make it anymore. And so seeing that has been very, very difficult, but I blame both Republicans and I blame Democrats. And, you know, the point of this is we're supposed to be making their lives easier when all we're doing is growing government and making it more difficult for hardworking Americans for retirees, people that want to have a family work and retire, I think in the greatest nation in the world, we have made it difficult for all of them, made it worse and not better. And I hope that when we get through the midterms, metting and peers that, you know, we can actually focus on the things that matter that we're not doing investigations for publicity stunts because both Republicans and Democrats are notorious for doing that. I do fear we're going to have impeachment after impeachment after impeachment and get nothing done, but these are very serious times and deserve very serious responses for what's going on in this country. And I think the disaster that Congress is, states are going to have to take a greater role in stepping up. - Peace, can I go for it? - I can say very importantly here. Because Nancy Bates, after, finally, very briefly, Nancy Bates, after implicitly defaming Maclomore, suggesting I'm defaming people, just to be clear, I'm not saying any of this. New York Magazine. Hold on, let me, can I finish a freaking sentence? New York Magazine, New York Magazine, is the one who published your former staff is accusing you of drinking too much. The New Yorker published a story. The New Yorker public, fair enough. New Yorker published a story suggesting that actually was so drunk it was pulled out of a bar. The New Yorker, go sue them, they haven't sued them so far. The New Yorker, the New Yorker magazine published a, can I finish a sentence? Do you know what? New Yorker magazine published a piece suggesting - You can't finish a sentence. - You can't finish a sentence. I'm gonna finish a sentence, because it's factual accuracy. The New Yorker magazine published the piece, accusing Pete Hector of drinking, of getting so drunk that he accept kill all Muslims. That was in New Yorker magazine, do you know what? You know what? You'll know this piece, you'll know this piece. You know what? Let me speak it all. Let me speak it all. Let me just say, I need a drink after that. I'm gonna go and probably get drunk to get over it. Well, join cash, I'll let me be here and say thank you. Here's a pure switch. I'm gonna go and have a drink. I think right now, I'm probably looking at a large Jack, probably a large Jack Daniels in Coke, to be honest with you. Maddie, what's your favorite drink? Well, I'm an evil Muslim, so I can't drink. I only drink Coke Zero. Okay. I like the little red wine, Lambrusco. Nancy? Well, I like a bit of red wine, too. Maybe I'll have that as well. I need a lot of alcohol after this. Thank you both very much indeed. - Thank you, Pierce. The British government has officially filed papers to request the extradition of the tape brothers from the United States. If there's a total of 59 charges in the UK, including rape, sex trafficking, and indecent images of a child, well, both Andrew and Tristan Tate have always fiercely denied all criminal wrongdoing. They also intend to fight their own tradition, although hopes of a presidential reprieve from Trump appear to be over. And while they wait for a lengthy little battle to play out, the brothers will main locked up in a Florida jail. A federal judge in Miami denied their bail, arguing that their apparently extravagant wealth made them a flight risk. Well, for the initial blaze of publicity following the arrest, the Tate's lawyers have kept their legal strategy under wraps, but an exclusive first interview since the extradition process formally began his two leading defense lawyers Adam Razzle and Andrew Ford join me now. I appreciate you coming on our senses to talk about this. And Andrew Ford, let me start just really by, I guess, laying out how it looks on the face of it. It looks like it's been a pretty devastating few weeks for the tape brothers. They lost their bail case in Miami. The UK has now officially filed extradition papers that are facing shocking new charges in Romania. I mean, it couldn't be going a lot worse, could it? Well, I think the Romania points to slight red herring. The reason there's further charges in Romania is because that case has been returned to the prosecutor to review based on procedural irregularities, which unfortunately seems to be a bit of a common theme in relation to this matter. So that's a slight red herring, they're not new charges. In relation to the bail in the US, the test is a high bar. So that was always going to be a difficult argument. And the fact that they were arrested on preventative arrest in the first place by US marshals at the request of the UK. It's no surprise, perhaps, at the UK. Now if request formally requested that extradition and we now wait to see whether or not they, or what's contained within the evidential pack, which we're yet to see, and whether or not we're furnished with information like the names of the complainants because it's very difficult, Pierce, to prepare for a case. When you don't know who the complainants are against, you're not asking for public announcements of the name. We're asking for the defendants, as they will be, to know the names of the complainants, so that we can prepare our case and so that we can preserve evidence to support our case. And I know you're a fierce proponent of due process, Pierce, and that's all we ask for. Yeah, no, 100% out. I mean, Adam Russell, I am a proponent of that, and I've always said about the taste. I don't know whether they're guilty or not. I do believe in due process. The whole process with them appears to just be dragging on for year after year after year and then gets more complicated as more charges are thrown and so on and so on. You know, the overwhelming impression being created by the legal process so far is that the charges against them are incredibly serious. There are a lot of them, a lot of different people making claims against them, and that their chances of getting off all this seem to be pretty small. How confident are you that ultimately they will be acquitted of everything? Well, firstly, Pierce, thank you for having us today. In relation to the taste exclusively, they've always been from day one, adhering to the Romanian case and investigation, and the build-up over time has built up of several counts, several charges. We're confident in the British system. We're at British Brown and Bread, the legal process, and once this case and if this case gets to the UK, it's over to a jury where we have the opportunity to battle fairly properly, and professionally. I think with respect to both the brothers to date, they've had Romania lawyers, they've had coverage of Romania, coverage in the US, and it's an opportunity now to see how the UK team work, and you know Pierce and Andrew and I, similarly, that the US system, the Romanian system, is very different to the UK, and we have faith in our defence, and we're confident. And what I would say, Pierce, which is very important, is it's very easy to make an allegation against someone. It's very easy to get a statement, but it's very difficult to give evidence in court and stand by what you say, and that's where we want to be. Yeah, I mean, Andrew Ford, you know, since it's part of their Miami bail application, the tape defence team argued they weren't a flight risk with the means and motives to skip bail because none of what we see is real. It's all exaggerated. They said Andrew and Tristan are social media personalities. The outrageousness of the post by them and about them is the point. The business model depends on online attention. The more hyperbolic and outlandish the post, the more likely it will generate views and likes, which in turn generates income. In short, they're playing a role. Further, the tapes are engaged in several businesses teaching men how to earn money. It's in their interest to portray themselves on social media as Uber wealthy. You know, I mean, if you subbed that down, I'm a former editor of a newspaper. It's like, you know what, most of this is bullshit. They're just massively exaggerating or inventing stuff to create a false persona. Now, the issue with that is it might help them legally, although it didn't with the bail application. But what does that send the message to the people paying money, for example, to have them teach them? If it's all built on sand, if it's all just bullshit? Well, I'm not sure it's all bullshit. Here's as you put it, but I think the important thing in relation to their means when it comes to the bail hearing is that they've had those means for many years. They've had those means for two years where they've been on bail from Romania and adhered to every aspect of those Romanian bail conditions. So what's perhaps more significant is not someone who is not flight risk because they don't run away because they don't have the means. Is somebody has the means, but then opts to adhere and comply with those bail conditions rigorously. So I'd say exaggeration is probably fair. I'd say bullshit, maybe not. Okay, but let's just go through some of these, Adam. And you know, Andrew Tate publicly claimed in 2023 in a podcast that he had 10 to 12 children in the official court findings. It came out of Miami extradition. It's actually three. So he's exaggerated the number of children he has by up to four times as many. Why would he do that? I mean, what's the point of that? If it's so easily provable, that is nonsense. I think what we've got to go back to is when these boys went from no social media coverage to huge amounts of social media coverage. And we all know in social media there is exaggeration. There are facts which are not necessarily right or accurate. But the main fact here is the differentiation between criminal investigation and facts about children doesn't cross over. The main issue for us from day one peers. And I think the most important point is why we're here. We're here because there are allegations against our clients, they wish to face the allegations, they will defend them rigorously. The facts and emissions of what they make in social media then becomes a social media prosecution. And as one thing peers, I think it's really important, which Andrew touched upon, is when we come back to looking at the UK legal system, this is a matter for a jury. So whatever happens outside this call or on social media or opinions from other lawyers comes down to the courtroom where we have faith that the legal system won't be interested in how many children he had. We'll be interested in the facts of what the victims or alleged victims say against the defence of the States. This is the first time you've seen Andrew and I on a call on a video in relation to this because we've been working rigorously focusing on the actual result as opposed to wanting our profiles all over media. and that's the important bit. professionally and put our faith in the jury and thus the most important facts that clears. Well, I think Andrew Ford is certainly true that what happens in a courtroom is obviously the most important thing, but all this stuff does go to their credibility. Apart from inventing nine children he doesn't have, it was also revealed that the high-end luxury items that they constantly post about as being theirs like a seven million dollar customized Bugatti Shearon, a 2.1 million dollar Aston Martin. These weren't actually owned by the States. They were rented or corporate least. That's been what emerged in these filings again. Is that correct? They didn't own any of these cars? I'm not sure I could afford to rent a Bugatti. I think you still got to have some wealth about you to be able to rent or hire or whatever a Bugatti. Sure, but it's whether they own it, whether they own it or don't. I mean, if they don't, they don't, but they've always claimed they did. I think they've read, I'll accept the fact that they probably readily conflated the two beers throughout, but exaggerating that doesn't affect their credibility when it comes to give evidence of court. It's worth no, it's just a talk. Sorry. Yeah, go on. I'll just thank you. Thank you, Pears. I'll just say in relation to that, Pears, in the last five years, Andrew and I have been involved in SFO HMRC cases where good people like yourself have paid posts on line or presences of cars and bags and all of a sudden they're faced with a process of crime applications, where did that come from? I'm not saying it's excusable, but what I'm saying, it puts on a cover of glamour, which isn't necessarily true, but I don't think it's something which prejudices their credibility. I think credibility will come down soon. No, no, but it's, no, I get that, but it's also, as I say, a lot of this is just bullshit. I don't, you know, I'm just saying that as a statement of fact, like there's a $50 million super yacht, the obsidian blade frequently appeared in their videos, but obviously it didn't belong to them. It turns out they were paid to promote the vessel on social media and there were a lot of assumptions about Andrew Tate's luxury watch collection, for example. It turns out, again, that he doesn't own most of this stuff. I guess the point I'm making, Adam, is that, you know, when I say it's bullshit, what I mean is they were creating a bogus world of Uber luxury and glamour and so on, which I always suspected was bullshit. A lot of it was massive exaggerated or simply invented. One of the problems here is as you take these guys into a courtroom, their honesty and credibility are going to come to the fore and I can imagine a prosecuting lawyer will leap on all this stuff and say, well, look, the whole thing is fake, right? How can you believe a word these guys say about anything? So I do think it goes to their credibility. If someone's prepared to just brazenly lie on social media to millions of people about how many kids he has or what car's he owns or yacht's he owns or watches he owns, it does go to credibility, doesn't it? I mean, it would be naive to think it doesn't. I wouldn't say it's bullshit. I understand the point. If you turn to the amount of children he has, I think we've got clients outside the brothers who will talk about how many people are in a family and children to mask privacy because that's an issue. In relation to the glamour and the glitz and the bogus items you're referring to, don't forget, they've travelled across the Middle East, they've travelled across parts of Dubai where other influences will piggyback and offer cars, watches, please put this post out, do this for us. So there is a small grenade there. I understand the point to an extent, but if a prosecutor is relying on that point to convict our clients, then I'll be quite happy about that. Yeah, no, I think there's obviously, as I said, there's going to be a lot more serious things for them to answer than these. In terms of their actual wealth, though, Andrew Ford, I would imagine this legal stuff is costing them a lot of money. Are they good for that money? Are you guys all getting paid on time and what you should be paid or are you doing it any of it pro bono for them and what's the deal? No, we're all good. We're well looked after and we're in a position to make sure they're defensive being properly prepared. So yeah, we're not going to discuss that in too much detail for obvious reasons, but we're okay, it's not a cheap process and that's case in point as to why it's not complete foe impression. There's legal teams across three different jurisdictions, which is not a cheap process, especially when you're incarcerated and your ability to be able to earn revenue is massively depleted. I mean, you guys come over as, you know, just perfectly normal lawyers to me. I dealt with a lot of lawyers at my time. The guy in America, Joseph Bride, seems to see his role as being a kind of shaman. How helpful is that in all this? Would it not be more helpful if his legal team in America adopted the kind of persona that you guys have? A bit more serious about everything and less that this is all some form of weird entertainment? I think this forces, of course, his peers and you're probably happy you've got a couple of bricks on rather than the more American-oriented approach perhaps, but ultimately this is going to come down to a trial in the UK and the UK approach is perhaps different to what you might expect in America. Just a dovetail on that peers. You might not remember this, but we met a few years back at Lords and we had a very similar conversation about the professionalism of lawyers and when it comes to how we approach things, we don't cut corners, we do things about the book, the US team, I'm sure they do, but we're not here to make a song in a dance. We have people in our circles and who have faced from investigations, pre-charge, release of investigation and I just think it's appropriate and maybe very traditionally to say to act a certain way, integrity upheld at all times and there's no need to shout from the rooftops and for us that's the approach we'll always take and I appreciate the persona comment peers, especially from you. Right, well, I'm obviously the complete antithesis of your client, so I've always shouted from the rooftops because that's part of their business model. What's been interesting has been how much Andrew take in particular and I've come to you, Andrew, on this, has been complaining on social media about his prison conditions. This was a post from September the 8th, so about a week ago, someone in general population stabbed another inmate and was dragged to the SHU punishment unit and put in the cell next to me, no commissary, no television, no phone calls, no pillow, grantanamo Bay conditions. He screamed all day and banged the door all night begging to go back to general population. After seven days, his punishment was complete for stabbing someone and released back to general population. I've been in the SHU unit for 51 days in counting, not seven days, 51 days. I've no criminal case in America, I've been respectful to every guard. The warden said the order to keep me in SHU comes from above. I gather my chi, I sit in lotus position in the dark for eight hours gathering my powers, I can survive. But the question is, I'm an American citizen with no criminal accusations in his country. I'm being accused of a me too from 15 years ago in England, the country which clearly hates me, who signed off on this. Why do they want me in SHU? My question would be how prudent is it for Andrew Tate to be posting stuff like this, playing the victim, complaining about his conditions and stuff when it could have a material effect on how he's treated? The reality is the conditions are thoroughly unpleasant. There's an hour of daylight today, which is the same hour of exercise today. Most people will struggle in those conditions. I think that's fair to say I'm not going to sit here and try and garner any sympathy for Andrew Tate because I'll be on to a loser, I'm fully aware of that. But what we do ask for throughout the process is fairness. So when the bail application was made, conditions of confinement were a big issue of that bail application. I, they are in the SHU unit, segregated housing unit, which is there to be a punishment. And the fact that they were there in these poor conditions, when they are unconvicted, seemed unfair. So in the lead up to the bail hearing, the Department of Justice gave them orderly status, which gave them a bit more time at their cell, and they've gave them commissary, which is some extra food or radio, that type of thing. They had the hearing, they made a big song and dance out of that during the course of the hearing to the judge. The following day, they removed both of those things. So I think we would be naive to think there wasn't some slightly atypical approach towards the tape brothers, rather than any other potential defendant. Okay, and Adam, how is Andrew take posting this stuff? I mean, he's even been posting poetry, you know, recently posted, I fell to bits because of the rose. What should I do with the rose garden with that? You are my beloved. What should I do with life in the world? Well, very poetic. But how is he doing all this? Has he got a phone? Has he got a computer? How is he posting? And is your honest legal advice to him that it's sensible to keep posting on social media, given the gravity of the charges he's facing? And the fact that he's incarcerated and what's people to think he's got extremely draconian conditions. Mae'r i'n gweithio gweithio yn ymredio yn ymredio yn ymredio yn ymredio yn ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio ymredio Mae'r ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn Mae'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n my i'n gweith i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'n oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio. I'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio. Oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio, oeddwn i'r gweithio. So there is a story behind all of these charges and for now it's very one sided in terms of what's out there in the media but there is a story behind them and those defenses will be presented at the right time. I wouldn't get drawn into the trap of thinking just because there's 59 charges that they are all credible and they're all going to be made out or even that quantity is something that we can even even base it on. Criminal charges is all about quality of the evident shrub and quantity of the charges. And Adam, you know Tristan Tate in his own post on his ex account accused the US penal system of housing him and his brother as political prisoners of the failing British state. And what does he base for that on? In relation to what he posted what he said, I don't know, in relation to Britain or England itself, the comments are not helpful, there's no hiding that. What I would say is when you've gone from being incarcerated in Romania, released, then traveling and then arrested, then going into another prison. People act differently, people say things piece and you know what I know when there are pending criminal investigations or requests to return to the UK from the US. There are things people say which they regret and I'm not here to say, I might be a good defense lawyer piece, but I don't pretend that I would magic wand to dispel people's comments. One thing I would say piece which is very useful about Andrews comments about the charges. It's important to understand one thing when people make charges and when they come to court and when you get an indictment. Those charges have to be stood by, the evidence has to be presented. We've been representing the brothers now over maybe around two to three years. And we've been asked so many times peers to talk about their defense, talk about what's the next steps. If we represented you peers, I would never talk about someone's defense. I'm confident about what we will do and what we will achieve. And it's not an arrogant comment, it's the fact that we spent so long working on every aspect of the case. And what we don't want to do is put live where we're going to go with this, what the steps are, what the defense is. I'm keen for it to get into the UK court simply because they have an opportunity to defend themselves. And I think once that starts and it's obviously for public viewing, I think the world may see a different side to this case. And that's easy for me to say as a defense lawyer, but it's also easy for me to say as a human because we do exist. We're not all bad lawyers. And finally, Andrew Ford, obviously there was a time when politicians like Nigel Farage praised Andrew Tate for being an important voice for emasculated young men, giving them confidence and so on. You know, the Trump world was pretty on side as well with Tate brothers for a while. There seems to have been a deliberate distancing there. Is there any hope, Andrew Ford of Donald Trump intervening at any stage in this, do you think? Or is that now being parked as never going to happen? It would be delegated to Marco Rubio and we'll see that's still a bridge that they've got to cross. They've also got a look at the chronology when doing so. So as an exclusive for you piece, we have started the process of a judicial review to challenge the UK's decision to seek extradition. In March 2024, Romania made an order to agree to extradition back to the UK, but once Romanian proceedings are concluded, we've already spoken about the fact that these proceedings haven't yet concluded. So our argument in that judicial review is and will be that is an unreasonable step to take because it's going to deprive them of their opportunity to be exonerated in Romania, which in turn is going to impact upon their their ability to be able to defend themselves in the UK. So when Andrew and Tristan have traveled many times to the US, to Dubai, to all of these countries with extradition treaties with the UK, they didn't seek extradition sooner. I don't know and there is no logical answer to that question. So we will be traditionally reviewing that decision and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If you want to answer to your question, it may not reach the executive. We may have other means of stopping it before it gets to that stage. But would the purpose of the review be that they could resist being extradited? The extradited but once Romanian proceedings are concluded, so going back to status quo as it was before they were arrested in Miami in July, 2026. So that has been the position. The brothers have been very keen to respect the Romanian proceedings. It seems as though the CPS have not offered Romanian in the same courtesy. If you fail in the review, just to be clear, finally Adam, just to be clear about the chronology here and the timeline, like I said at the start, this has taken years already. As things stand, if the judicial review fails, then what is the sequence of events here that we can expect and what would the likely timeline be of this in terms of when we can expect to see it? It's something under an I discuss in the day, Andrew Ford and I discuss it at daily basis, which is if the extradition, well successful and the brothers are sent back or sent to the UK. The chronology events will come down to remained prison availability courts. I think you are going to 2027 peers. I cannot see the brothers being sent to the UK this side of the year. That's just based on the US system, not the UK system. There's also another issue, which I think you talked about many years ago, but back in 2020. We had COVID and was still dealing with the courts. We'll go back to what I said about 50 minutes ago, handling a jury in this case is going to be difficult. I don't know how that's going to be achieved. It will obviously, but it'll take time. So I think Andrew and I think together 2027, I'd just, I'd be surprised, but we're ready if they are brought again in 26, but I think 27 years. Well, listen, I appreciate you both coming on. You haven't done much media around this and it's good to get some clarity about where the situation is. And as I've said, as I said to Andrew tape when I've interviewed him numerous times, I don't know. I don't know if he's guilty or not. I do know he's facing very serious charges. I actually think it's in everybody's interest that this gets into a courtroom sooner rather later. a neuvrwm i'r ymwch chi'n ddod. I can see the evidence, they can see the prosecution, they can see the defence, they can see the British justice system working, and ultimately get clarity about whether they're guilty or not. But I appreciate you two coming on today to talk me through it. Thank you very much. Thank you for having us. Thank you. Here's Morgan on Census and it's proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. You enjoy our show and also only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan on Census 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.