"Right Thing To Do!" Diddy's Lawyer vs Piers Morgan On Trump Pardon

22:03Okay, a lot in your question. First, they would probably be upset with Trump using his cherished pardons on someone like this. You just saw the interview with Trump. He said, well, he was nice to me at first and he wasn't nice to me. When is that a criteria? Shouldn't it be the case and what this guy did? Maybe if he's nice to you later, now you're going to give a pardon? That's not what pardons should be about. Secondly, the court of public opinion is very different than the court of law. The court of public opinion is free to have very strong feelings about what Diddy did. We saw from that video that is proof beyond all doubt that he was abusive towards women.

22:40The other counts, while not necessarily proven, still showed the public that he was a monster and his behavior was abhorrent. It's entirely different whether the government could prove and they could not. The very, very challenging RICO charge typically applied to the mafia, right? Not necessarily the Al Capone's of the lube world. This was a very challenging case. And it doesn't mean that Diddy didn't do it.

23:10Piers Morgan:It doesn't. But Eric Gardner, like I said to Nicole Westmoreland, when I interviewed the guy, I can't remember his actual name, but the Punisher, which is his working name as a male escort. I DID FIND HIM EXTREMELY CREDIBLE, AND HE DID PAINT A VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE TO THE ONE THAT CASSIE VENTURA WAS TRYING TO PAINT, WHICH WAS IN HIS ESTIMATION, EVERYTHING HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CONSENSUAL. I DID FEEL IF I HAD BEEN ON THAT JURY, HEARING THAT GUY TALK ABOUT THE DOZEN OR SO TIMES HE HAD MET UP, DID HE JUST SAT IN THE CORNER WATCHING AS SHE VERY WILLINGLY HAVING BOOKED HIM AND PAID FOR HIM, WILLINGLY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH AND THAT THEY CARRYED ON FOR TWO YEARS DOING THIS QUITE HAPPILY.

23:53Piers Morgan:I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT TO ME THAT THIS WAS NOT THE WAY IT WAS BEING PORTRAYED. WHAT DO YOU THINK? WELL, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE JURY DIDN'T NECESSARILY DECLARE DID HE INNOCENT. WHAT THEY DID WAS THAT THEY DECLARED THAT THE PROSECUTORS JUST HAD NOT MADE THE CASE. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF CRITICISM IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE PROSECUTORS WERE VERY AGGRESSIVE ON THIS. They, you know, overcharged Didek stuff with trafficking and all that. So you can certainly, you know, make judgments that, you know, stuff was consensual. But I don't think that you can read the verdict as a declaration that it was all consensual.

24:34I think that there's room for interpretation.

24:36Piers Morgan:And just to be clear, right, just to be clear, when Nicole Westmoreland said they could find NO OTHER EXAMPLE OF ANYONE WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF THE CHARGES THAT HE WAS CONVICTED OF IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVELY PROSTITUTION ACROSS STATE LINES. THEY COULDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING SENT TO PRISON FOR THAT. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED IN PARTICULAR THAT CRIME, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SHE SAID, SHE WAS BASICALLY SAYING FOR HIS TYPES OF ACTS. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW whether there's stuff that has ever been charged on free golfs and stuff like that and what exactly she was referring to.

25:18But I do know that people have been sentenced for the Mann Act before. She herself referenced a famous example in the box, Jack Johnson, who was pardoned. So, you know, I also think that, you know, the judge is very conscious of the fact that, you know, he was charged with more crimes. He doesn't seem to be, you know, particularly, you know, you know, a grieving about what happened. And, you know, the fact is that, you know, it will be a deterrence effect to sentence him to jail time, you know, the message sent to the community about this. So I do expect there to be a, you know, a fairly harsh sentence here.

26:01and what do you think that could be? A few years. I don't think he'll get the maximum 20 but I definitely think he'll see some jail time. Really?

26:13Piers Morgan:Interesting. And just on that one point Bruce Rivers, on that one point what are you anticipating? I bet he gets somewhere between 50 and 60 months but I do take issue with two words that you just used quite happily. I think Cassie was in this to get something from Diddy, clearly, but I don't think she did everything quite happily. I think if she didn't obey, there were consequences, and we see that in the video. And then those are the things that the judge is going to take into account when he issues the sentence. Yeah. Pierce, this case can't plausibly be analogized to what the attorney was talking about.

26:51Those in a vacuum where somebody hires a prostitute and they come across state lines, that's one thing. But in federal court, a judge can legally and should consider all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the offense. The judge sat through weeks of testimony and learned a lot more about what Diddy did and how it pertained to the Mann Act charges for which he was convicted. He has every right to consider that when sentencing him. What do you think the sentence will be? A guideline sentence. Now, the answer is, what is the guidelines? You know, the defense is arguing it's somewhere in the two-year range.

27:32The prosecution's arguing it's somewhere in the five to six range. So the first thing that's going to happen in federal court is the judge is going to determine where does he fall within the guidelines. Prosecution, I think, is asking for a higher sentence because there were allegedly eight victims. Good luck proving that. So that's the first thing. What are the guidelines? And I think he'll get a guideline sentence from the judge.

27:53Piers Morgan:And if you were a betting man, what do you think will end up being the sentence? Probably two to three years, somewhere in there, within the guidelines that the defence is representing. Interesting. Okay, let's turn to Candice Owens against the Macrons, which is a fascinating case. I can't really remember any world leader taking on a podcaster in this way. However, Mark, it's an interesting case. Let's watch a little clip from my interview with Candice. THIS HAS BEEN BLOWING UP ONLINE FROM MONDAY. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. AS YOU SAY, A DEFAMATION CASE, IT ULTIMATELY COMES DOWN TO TRUTH MATTERING.

28:31Piers Morgan:IT SEEMS TO ME THIS WHOLE CASE IS GOING TO BE RESOLVED IN A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY BECAUSE THE OBVIOUS WAY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG AND HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY LYING ABOUT IT, IF YOU 'VE BEEN DOING IT DELIBERATELY OR OTHERWISE, BUT TELLING A LIE ABOUT HER, WHICH HAS OBVIOUSLY CAUSED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF HURT, IS IF THEY JUST PRODUCE EVIDENCE SHE'S A WOMAN. DO YOU ACCEPT IF THEY DO THAT, YOUR WHOLE CASE DISINTEGRATES? OF COURSE IT WOULD DISINTEGRATE. FIRST OFF, NO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THE ACTUAL MALICE STANDARD IN AMERICA, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WE KNOWINGLY KNEW THIS. WE WENT TO THEM WITH QUESTIONS AND THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER.

29:03THAT IS VERY STRANGE. SHE'S NOT RIGHT. SHE'S ONLY HALF RIGHT. SHE'S HALF RIGHT. SHE'S HALF RIGHT. OK, let me explain everything. OK, in the court of public opinion, she loses if somehow she's proven to be wrong. Correct. But in a court of law where she's being sued, there has to be proven actual malice, half of which she just talked about. If she knew what she was saying was false, she is screwed. However, there's another part to that. Actual malice is either you knew it to be false when you said it and wrote about it, or it was a reckless disregard of the truth. That's probably where, if she's held responsible at all, and I don't know that she will be, that she could be held accountable.

29:50She's going to rely upon Xavier Poussard's book, Becoming Bridgette, or Bridgette, whatever they're calling it. She relied upon that book. So in her mind, if she believed it to be true, even if it's false, she will survive this lawsuit. THAT IS A VERY INTERESTING.

30:09Piers Morgan:THAT IS VERY INTERESTING. AND, BRUCE, THERE WAS A THING THAT GOT PICKED UP ONLINE AFTER I INTERVIEWED HER WHERE PEOPLE SAID YOU SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED HER ABOUT WHY THE MACRONS AREN'T SUING THE JOURNALISTS. APPARENTLY IN FRANCE THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DEFAMATION IS THREE MONTHS FOR DEFAMATION AND INSULT RUNNING ON THE DATE OF the first publication or posting and becoming redeemed by Javier Boussard was published in February 2025. So there's a very, very narrow period of time where you can take this. Well, here's the thing. If that was the case, the Sandy Hook family couldn't have gone after Mr.

30:51Jones, right? And what we have here is just a black female, Alex Jones. I mean, that's really what she is. Bomb thrower, bomb thrower. Let's say like conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory it's just ridiculous she knows she's not she's not a man i mean that's the other part of this that i think is kind of lost because when you have somebody in the public opinion and it's um calling her a man is is really comical in a sense and so comedians can get away with that kind of stuff right but she's going on and on and on and on about it and people are starting to buy And so, you know, once you cross that threshold, I think the malice and the reckless disregard that Mark talked about is something that can't be ignored.

31:37So, honestly, if I were them, I would dismiss her as, you know, whatever. But I don't know that I would have made fun of her. You know, you've seen Obama do that kind of stuff where he bats things away with humor. And I would have probably tried to combat it that way. but you know she she's gonna have to sleep in the bed she made so she may have some risk here

32:02Piers Morgan:yeah i mean eric i i think she's going to lose because i think the macrons are finally probably going to just simply reveal the results of a sex test i mean that seems to me the most obvious way to emphatically deny this whole in my view preposterous narrative that bridget macron is SHE'S A WOMAN, SHE'S A MALE. SHE'S A MALE. SHE'S A THREE KIDS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE. I THINK IF THEY WERE TO PROVIDE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE VIA A SEX TEST THAT SHE'S A WOMAN, THEN WHATEVER CANDICE SAYS ABOUT MALICE AND SO ON, I THINK SHE'S SHOWN PLENTY OF MALICE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. AND SHE'S DOUBLED AND TREBLED AND QUADRUPLED DOWN, INCLUDING WITH ME ON MONDAY.

32:41Piers Morgan:I THINK IF IT'S PROVEN THAT BRIDGINE MACRON IS A WOMAN AS I I BELIEVE SHE IS. IT'S GAME OVER, ISN'T IT? UNFORTUNATELY, I DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNLAWFUL TO LIE ABOUT ANYTHING. WHAT IS UNLAWFUL IS TO LIE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HURTS SOMEONE'S REPUTATION. AND THERE'S A BIT OF WRINKLES HERE. ONE IS SHE SEEMS TO REALLY TRULY BELIEVE IT. I MEAN, THE FACT THAT SHE TOOK THAT CRAZY BET WITH YOU, YOU believes are crackpot theories. One can say, oh, she's recklessly disregarding the truth and all that. But from what I hear, she's basically saying, look, I see the ID tests.

33:24I see the pictures and here's my explanation for it. She lays it down on the table and you can disagree with her. You can think that. Yeah. I don't think she does. Well, OK, I think there's another problem him too. And that's the issue of damages. You know, can Macron show$1 worth of damages here? I haven't heard any theory, both specifically or generally, about how he's really been damaged here. You know, there's all these cases about, you know, he's calling someone gay when they're not, is not defamation. Is calling someone a man when they're not defamation? I don't know. I can't think of any case where that's been established.

34:08And then to, in particular, to specific damages, you know, who believed it? Who would believe Candace Owens? And who would believe it in France? A lot of people. A lot of people are listening to her. She has millions of viewers. I disagree.

34:24Piers Morgan:Mark's right. I think a lot of people are believing it. I think there's a lot of harm there. I'm listening to what she's saying. She's articulate. She's intelligent. She could be dangerous if she's not telling the truth. But the key is whether, again, it's not if what she's saying is true or not in terms of a legal suit. In the court of public opinion, discredit her. If this is not true, eviscerate her, abandon her. You can't believe anything that comes from her lips. But in a court of law, she could be dead wrong. Listen, Pierce, you've done a lot of wonderful reporting, but there are times you would even CONCEDE THAT YOU GOT IT WRONG.

35:01GETTING IT WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE BASING IT UPON SOURCES THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY ACCURATE IS NOT LIABELIST. IT'S NOT ACTIONABLE. IT'S NOT DEFAMATORY. IT'S JUST AREN'T IDEA. IT IS IN MY COUNTRY, FUNNY ENOUGH.

35:13Piers Morgan:IT IS IN MY COUNTRY. WE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT LAWS ON LIBEL AND DEFAMATION. AND IT'S MUCH EASIER TO WIN IN THE UK. IN DELAWARE, GETTING IT WRONG DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S ACTIONABLE. YOU 'VE GOT TO KNOW IT TO be false or a reckless disregard of the truth and we're not sure that she's at that point and i i know it's an extreme example if it happened to alex jones you know he went on and on and on about saying you know yes he did yes he did and he got a billion dollar award against him which as far as i'm aware he's barely paid any of that but that was an I'M NOT AN EXAMPLE OF HIM DELIBERATELY, IN MY VIEW, PROMOTING A LIE HE KNEW TO BE A LIE BECAUSE HE WAS MAKING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND EVERY TIME HE WENT ON THE AIRWAYS AND REPEATED THE LIE THAT THE SANDY HOOK MASSACURE WAS STAGED, YOU COULD SEE A A LITTLE BIT OF A SPIKE IN HIS EARNINGS, A DRAMATIC SPIKE IN HIS EARNINGS.

36:10Piers Morgan:SO THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE STRAIGHT LINE THERE BETWEEN PROMOTING A LIE, WHICH EVERYBODY KNEW TO BE A LIE, AND HIM MAKING TONS OF MONEY. NOW IN CANDICE'S CASE SHE HAS A VERY POPULAR YOUTUBE CHANNEL. EVERY TIME SHE'S TALKED ABOUT THE MACRON, SHE GETS A LOT OF TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH SHE'S MAKING A TON OF MONEY OUT OF THIS. But the question, and I think Mark's right about this, it comes down in American law. It comes down to, did she knowingly do that, knowing it was a lie? And that, I think, is going to be the determining factor. Pierce, what's going to help her? And by the way, there's no question she's benefiting.

36:46There's no question she, even when you brought that up, she didn't somehow say, you're wrong, Pierce. Of course she's benefiting. But again, unlike the Sandy Hook case, she can rely first and foremost on a book, a book that was a bestseller apparently in France and use that to say, look, I'm just quoting things from the book. I believe the book. It was persuasive to me. And for what it's worth, that interview that you did with her peers proved to me that she really does believe this. SHE IS A WOMAN.

37:17Piers Morgan:WELL, I THINK SHE LOOKS, I HAVE KNOWN CANDICE A LONG TIME. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT NECESSARILY PROVES SHE KNOWS FOR A FACT. I THINK SHE CAN BE EXTREMELY, AS YOU TOUCHED ON EARLIER, SHE CAN BE EXTREMELY ARTICULATE AND COMPELLING SOMETIMES IN DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. SO WE SHALL SEE. I THINK IT WILL BE FASCINATING. If the first thing the Macrons do is reveal the results of a sex test to prove she's a woman, right there you've got an immediate slam dunk on that part of the argument, which underpins the entire story. So I think in the court of public opinion in that moment, Candace is done. But you're right.

37:53Piers Morgan:She may be done in the court of public opinion in that eventuality, but not necessarily in an actual courtroom. Really interesting. Let's just turn finally to the Epstein case. The U.S. House Oversight Committee issuing subpoenas for Bill Clinton, for Hillary Clinton, tons of other people, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and so on and so on. I felt about this case, A, that the Trump administration having walked everybody up the hill to get very excited about we're going to reveal everything about Epstein. Then we had Elon Musk falling out with Trump and saying on X, bombshell Trump's in the Epstein files, and then mysteriously two weeks later, the files are all shut down and that's the end of it.

38:39Piers Morgan:And then, of course, MAGA, interestingly, rebelling against this because they've been left at the top of the hill expecting to get all the dirt and then discover that they're being told there isn't any. So I think it's been very badly handled by the Trump administration. However, I also said for the Democrats, be careful what you wish for, because there are a lot of senior Democrat people who were caught up in the Epstein world, notably Bill Clinton, who repeatedly went on the Air Lolita or whatever they called it, the Epstein plane. Now, no suggestion that Clinton broke any laws. We don't know, but his name will be all over these files.

39:20Piers Morgan:You know, Bruce, what do you feel about this? And particularly, we've got Ghislaine Maxwell now giving a lot of recorded evidence about what you see. maybe 20 hours or so of what she may know and may have seen, presumably to try and get herself out of prison. What's your overview of where we are with this Epstein scandal? First of all, she should not be pardoned whatsoever. There would be no Epstein without Glenn Maxwell. She recruited these girls, she brought them in under her wing and fed them to the wolves. She, I've never seen a situation where the defendant's lawyer, the principal's lawyer, gets to talk to the witness.

40:07I mean, how is it that Trump's lawyer, I mean, they should have had a line prosecutor. They should have had an FBI agent there. And anything she says is suspect. So I wouldn't trust a word she says. you know but release the files I they're not going to release a jury transcript grand jury transcripts and I don't think they should but because you're going to re-victimize some people but if there's over a thousand women or young ladies and I don't know if that's an accurate figure or not but that's been bantered about are we going to re-victimize these girls all over again one of whom committed suicide over this I mean she should be afforded no privileges whatsoever ever.

40:48I mean, she should have gotten a life sentence. Epstein certainly was looking at a life sentence.

40:56Piers Morgan:Yeah, I mean, Eric, what's fascinating about this is, well, we know that Epstein abused a lot of young girls. We know Ghislaine Maxwell was around him for most of that period. And we know that the only person, despite so many rich, famous, powerful people being in THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN MADE ACCOUNTABLE IS GILANE MAXWELL WHO HAS BEEN LANGUISHING IN JAIL ON A 20-YEAR SENTENCE. MANY PEOPLE FEEL QUITE RIGHTLY IN MY OPINION THAT THERE MUST BE A LOT OF POWERFUL MEN WHO HAVE JUST GOT AWAY WITH THIS SO FAR. THE QUESTION BECOMES ARE THEY GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? AND HAS GILANE MAXWELL TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET HERSELF OUT OF PRISON BY NAMING NAMES OF rich, powerful or famous men, maybe all three, who were part of this, who may now get dragged in, making it a much bigger scandal?

41:50Piers Morgan:And will she also, as part of her deal with the Trump side, have made it crystal clear that Trump did nothing wrong, which may be what Donald Trump wants her to do? You want to know what quality sounds like? It sounds like a Ford Super Duty towing up to 40 ,000 pounds before the sun comes up. It sounds like a Ford Mustang doing what a Mustang does. Ford, J.D. Power's number one in initial quality among mainstream brands. Ready, set, board. When properly equipped, max towing varies based on cargo, vehicle configuration, accessories, number of passengers. For J.D. Power 2026 U.S. initial quality study award information, visit jdpower.com slash awards.

42:28Awards based on 2026 model year. Newer models may be shown. Yeah, I'm very interested in what Gillian Maxwell has to say. That's probably the only new thing I think that will come from all this. A lot of the stuff that's coming from Congress in terms of subpoenas, I regard as a bit of a sideshow, as a bit of like political tit for tat. But, you know, her testimony is, you know, kind of fresh and new. And I'm sure she's saying things that she didn't say when she was, you know, under indictment and facing prosecution. whether or not she's just saying these sorts of things to angle for pardon or for leniency.

43:08Who knows? But I'd certainly be there watching, riveted her testimony in front of Congress. Of course she wants to get out of prison. That's exactly why she would ever meet with prosecutors. And we shouldn't be afraid to hear what she has to say. What prosecutors do routinely is they give her a Castigar letter, a Queen for a Day letter. They let her speak. If there's nothing of value and it can't be corroborated and nobody is ever prosecuted, then she gets nothing. Only when it leads to substantial assistance, as it's called, which is a high threshold to meet, then prosecutors would consider giving her some benefit.

43:46So no fear. Sit her down. Let her spew. Here's the problem. She's got an appeal to the Supreme Court to determine whether her case should have ever been brought to begin with. So now she's holding back. She's not going to do anything really meaningful until and unless the Supremes say, we're going to pass on your case, which is likely what they're going to do, or we're going to take it up. She's already received benefits. She's been moved to a lesser prison. It seems like these opportunities. I don't know whether that was coincidental or not. It did happen two days after she met with prosecutors.

44:19Piers Morgan:Donald Trump said he knew nothing about her being moved to a much more lenient prison. I mean, look, I'll take him at face value, but it seems a little implausible given the scale of this Epstein scandal. What do you think, Bruce? Well, I think she had this opportunity prior to trial. And there's a reason that no agreement was made prior to trial. What Mark's talking about is a proffer letter where she can say anything she wants and they don't hold it against her. And so that's you sit down with the government and the idea is that there's no repercussions for you testifying or talking to the government.

45:01In exchange for that, we don't you know, there's no we're not going to hold anything against you. But the problem is, is that she had all this available to her at the outset. I mean, didn't Bill Gates get divorced because of his his predilections at St. James Island? I mean, I don't know if that's the case or not, but, you know, Melinda Gates didn't really talk a lot about it. Clinton's been on his plane how many damn times? And the name of the plane, Lolita. But Bruce, Bruce, it's not uncommon for people to speak after their trials. I mean, we advise clients not to do or say anything unless they have to.

45:38Why cooperate unless you're convicted? Just because she's giving it now, while it should be considered more suspect, right? What's your motive, right? She's probably going to do what a lot of our clients do. It wasn't a small fish. It was a much larger fish. She might implicate people. So they need to be very careful with what she has to say, but not discredit it just because of the timing of it. It's called a Rule 35. It's after the fact, after conviction, prosecutors can move the court to lower the sentence that somebody gets. It happens all the time. With her, be very suspect, I tell prosecutors, but listen to what she has to say.

46:12Maybe what she says leads to furtherance of investigation towards one of these high-profile guys, and we want to get at them Because if they harm children, Epstein shouldn't be the only one held accountable.

46:24Piers Morgan:Agreed. Yeah, I completely agree with that. And just to be clear, Mark, if she was able to give that kind of lead to investigators that led to somebody potentially being charged with a crime in relation to Epstein and the girls and so on, would that be enough in itself? I mean, how do they determine whether the evidence that you've given? Right. Welcome to my world. 33 years of doing this in spite of my extraordinarily youthful appearance. We are constantly having clients cooperate. We think it's great. And then the prosecutors go, yeah, all right, maybe it was assistance, but it wasn't substantial assistance.

47:04And that's it. You can't get the judge to do anything. It's totally up to the prosecutors. That's how it works. And it ain't so fair, Pierce.

47:14Piers Morgan:That's really interesting. So it can be left like open ended. and they can determine whether the consequence of your evidence you give is significant enough to warrant a reduction in your sentence or not. Welcome to my world. Yes. Not only that, when you give that substantial assistance, even if they agree, a lot of times they don't agree to any particular amount. They just say, Judge, he has done this and it is substantial and we did get a conviction, but here's the other bad things about him. And they do that all the time. And it's just like, you know, so they minimize, you know, a lot of times, you know, how much substantial assistance they get.

47:56And so you don't really get any firm commitment. And they do that because when they go into trial in the other case, when they go into trial in the other case, the witness can't say they're getting a particular benefit. Right.

48:11Piers Morgan:Very interesting. Guys, thank you very much. That was a really interesting romp through three fascinating cases, but great to get the real legal perspective, because often it can be very different, actually, what happens in the law and in a courtroom to what happens on social media in the court of public opinion, which can rage away but often have little bearing on the reality. So thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Piers Morgan on Sensor 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.

48:50Piers Morgan: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.

49:10Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling, and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your$1 per month trial at shopify.com slash special offer.