"You're a DISGRACE!" Don Lemon Arrested + Epstein Files | Brett Ratner Speaks!

Summary

Podcast Summary

Piers Morgan Uncensored
Episode: “You’re a DISGRACE!” Don Lemon Arrested + Epstein Files | Brett Ratner Speaks!
Date: February 2, 2026

---

Overview

This episode tackles two major stories dominating headlines: the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon after covering a church protest, and the explosive new release of the Epstein files, which exposed links between Jeffrey Epstein and numerous high-profile figures. The episode features a roundtable debate with panelists including Mark Eiglash (criminal defense attorney), Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks), Tara Palmeri (The Tara Palmeri Show), Eric Bolling (commentator), as well as an extended interview with Brett Ratner and Mark Beckham, director and producer, respectively, of the new Melania Trump documentary.

---

Key Topics and Discussions

1. Don Lemon’s Arrest: Legal and Ethical Analysis

• Incident Recap (32:47-33:41): Don Lemon was arrested after reporting live from a protest that interrupted a church service, sparking a heated discussion about journalistic rights and the limits of the First Amendment.
  • Don Lemon (00:00, 32:47):
    “I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.”
• Legal Perspective (34:47):
  • Mark Eiglash:
    “No, he didn’t [break the law]. It’s not even close. …The First Amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did, cover an event.”
    • Distinction between ‘incidental’ and ‘intentional’ interference:
      “One needs intentional interference to be found guilty of a criminal act... his intention falls way short factually of intending to be there to interfere with people's ability to worship.” (34:47)
• Counterpoint:
  • Eric Bolling (35:56):
    “He broke into an ongoing church service. He busted in. … They need him as a useful idiot to their push to open immigration at all costs.”
• Broader Implications:
  • Piers Morgan (37:15):
    “Is Don Lemon part of the protest group or is he tangentially, a journalist who knows it’s going to happen, goes in and reports? …From a legal perspective, it’s hard to prove that he is not one removed from this.”
  • Anna Kasparian (38:07):
    “The evidence… indicates that Don Lemon got a tip… He wanted to cover it. …The real question is, was he there to participate… or to document it?”
• Precedent and Journalistic Freedom:
  • Panel agrees arresting journalists for covering protests sets a dangerous precedent.
  • Tara Palmeri (40:09):
    “Like this is part of the job of being a journalist. You cover movements, you cover protests, you go where things happen.”
  • Final takeaway (43:26, Piers Morgan):
    “People need to be intellectually consistent… If you start getting tribal where it’s okay for your side but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest.”

---

2. The Epstein Files: Fallout, Media, and Justice

• Massive Data Release (00:40, 04:57): Over 3 million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos disclosed, implicating various celebrities and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
• Legal Standards and Prosecution (04:57):
  • Mark Eiglash:
    “We know crimes took place. …But there’s a whole nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”
    • Photos or association with Epstein isn’t enough for prosecution.
    • Warns about lowering legal standards:
      “When you lower the bar to get these creeps… then they're lowering the bar for you.” (04:57)
• Failure of Investigation:
  • Tara Palmeri (05:45, 07:10):
    “Why not just do an investigation? …We are supposed to be seeing all of the files related to that. Wouldn’t you assume that a follow up investigation would be… included...?”
  • Anna Kasparian (07:47, 08:52):
    Criticizes FBI’s lack of transparency and selective redactions:
    “Epstein responded to an email that was redacted and his response… was, ‘loved the torture videos’... Why did they redact the name of the individual who sent Epstein torture videos? …They made sure to redact the names of the perverts… They made sure to redact that.”
• High-Profile Names and Double Standards:
  • Mentioned figures include Lord Mandelson, Prince Andrew, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Clinton, and Trump. (00:40, 11:38, 14:27, 18:07)
  • Piers Morgan (12:59):
    “There are two types of deniability here. There's the plausible deniability… and then there are the people that carried on consorting with him after that. And one of those is Elon Musk.”
  • Anna Kasparian (16:49):
    “Anyone who takes what the rich and powerful have to say at face value… are being, I mean, unbearably naive. …[Epstein] was an incredibly powerful man who was … talking about his work for Mossad… and the Rothschilds.”
• Geopolitical Concerns and Money:
  • Anna Kasparian (16:49): Raises theory of blackmail and foreign intelligence involvement.
  • Eric Bolling (19:51):
    “He wasn’t a smart man. He wasn’t an intellectual by any means. He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups and I don't know who. …Find out how Epstein made his money.”
• Red vs. Blue Justice and Consequences:
  • UK: prominent figures (Mandelson, Prince Andrew) facing public disgrace/prosecution.
  • US: no consequences for prominent figures so far, and speculation about files withheld for “national interest.”
    • Tara Palmeri (23:18):
      “We still haven't even seen 3 million of the files of the 6 million.”
• Fairness to Those Only Tangentially Linked:
  • Mark Eiglash (24:27):
    Warns against “big net” of guilt by mere association.
  • Tara Palmeri (25:15): Pushes back, suggesting anyone around Epstein could not have been ignorant to his crimes.

---

3. Media Narratives and Notable Quotes

• Selective Outrage and Double Standards:
  • Eric Bolling (14:27): Criticizes panel for not mentioning Bill Clinton.
  • Anna Kasparian (16:49): Urges not to make issue partisan:
    “People from both sides... have been implicated.”
• Elon Musk’s Public Statement (27:13):
  • Quoted by Piers Morgan:
    “Nobody’s fought harder for full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abuse children more than I did… knowing full well the legacy media, far left propagandists… would 1, admit nothing, 2, deny everything, 3, make counter accusations against me… I will gladly accept any amount of future pain to do more to protect kids and give them a chance to grow up and have happy lives.”
  • Panel points out inconsistency between his public statements and email evidence.
• Alan Dershowitz’s Role:
  • Anna Kasparian (28:44): Directly implicates Dershowitz based on newly released files:
    “Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein.”
  • Eric Bolling (31:00):
    “He refuted all minor sex trafficking… Alan, we know way too much. You can claim you're innocent all you want, but you can’t go and say… Bill Clinton never got involved…”
  • Panel debates whether media should continue featuring Dershowitz.

---

4. Melania Trump Documentary: Media, Politics, and Filmmaking

• Public and Critical Reaction (45:59):
  • Movie widely panned by mainstream critics but a box office and audience hit.
  • Mark Beckham:
    “You can’t really trust the critics. …It’s the largest spread. …on Rotten Tomatoes… between 6 and 10% [critic score]… a 98 or 99% audience favor. …How far away the critics are.”
  • Brett Ratner (49:08):
    “Brett was able to go ahead and tell her story… in a way that’s never been done before. …I give this guy a ton of credit.”
• Melania’s Public Image:
  • Piers Morgan (46:03): Praises Melania’s resilience and public dignity as First Lady
  • Mark Beckham and Brett Ratner: Emphasize documentary’s intimate portrayal of Melania’s public and private roles, including humanitarian efforts.
• Economic and Political Allegations (56:07):
  • Rumors Amazon bought rights as a political tactic dismissed by both Ratner and Beckham; they detail the secrecy of the project and say Trump was not informed during production.
• Scandal Connection — Brett Ratner and Epstein (60:00):
  • Piers Morgan: Challenges Ratner about a photo with Epstein.
  • Mark Beckham:
    “That is a photograph of my fiancée… I was never in contact with Jeffrey Epstein before that photo and I was never in contact with him after.”
  • Brett Ratner: Defends Beckham’s credibility and focus on the documentary.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• Anna Kasparian (07:47):
  “There’s only been an effort to cover everything up from the FBI. …Epstein responded to an email that was redacted and his response to that email was, loved. The torture videos. Why did they redact the name…?”
• Mark Eiglash (04:57):
  “We know that crimes took place. …You don’t lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong.”
• Eric Bolling (14:27):
  “Let’s keep digging. Let’s not let them change the narrative. Including Donald Trump.”
• Anna Kasparian (16:49):
  “Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile… He was an incredibly powerful man who was… talking about his work for Mossad… and the Rothschilds.”
• Tara Palmeri (25:15):
  “It was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about. There were always young girls around.”
• Eric Bolling (19:51):
  “He wasn’t a smart man. He wasn’t an intellectual by any means. He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups and I don’t know who.”
• Piers Morgan (27:13):
  Cites Elon Musk’s lengthy personal defense regarding his inclusion in Epstein files.
• Anna Kasparian (28:44):
  “There’s nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk. …But… why were you lying to the American people?”
• Anna Kasparian (31:00):
  “He’s the one who got that disgusting serial rapist a sweetheart deal, and he lied about the Epstein files. He’s a disgrace.”
• Don Lemon (32:47):
  “The First Amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless other journalists who do what I do. …I will not be silenced.”
• Mark Eiglash (34:47):
  “No, he didn’t [break the law]. It’s not even close. …There’s a difference between incidental interference and intentional interference.”
• Piers Morgan (43:26):
  “People need to be intellectually consistent… If you start getting tribal where it’s okay for your side but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest.”
• Mark Beckham (45:59):
  “It shows you the separation between the critics and the audience, the true audience.”

---

Segment Timestamps

• 00:00 – 09:00: Epstein files revelations and legal standards
• 11:38 – 18:07: High-profile names, geopolitics, and the money trail
• 23:18 – 28:44: Justice in the UK vs. US, guilt by association
• 28:44 – 32:08: Elon Musk, public narratives, and Dershowitz
• 32:47 – 44:31: Don Lemon’s arrest and the debate on journalistic rights
• 45:59 – 54:19: Melania Trump documentary interview with Ratner and Beckham
• 60:00 – 62:31: Ratner and Beckham address Epstein photo controversy

---

Panelists/Guests

• Piers Morgan (host)
• Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks)
• Tara Palmeri (The Tara Palmeri Show)
• Eric Bolling (TV/radio host)
• Mark Eiglash (criminal defense attorney)
• Brett Ratner (filmmaker, guest)
• Mark Beckham (producer, guest)

---

Tone & Style

• Candid, combative, unapologetically partisan at times, but with attempts by Morgan and others to urge even-handedness and intellectual consistency.
• Heated but intellectual debate; frequent references to legal norms, public opinion, and political/celebrity culture.

---

Summary Takeaways

• The Epstein files contain vast, disturbing information, but most referenced high-profile names face public disgrace rather than legal consequence—and panelists question the integrity of both law enforcement and the media.
• Don Lemon’s arrest is viewed largely as government overreach and a dangerous attack on journalistic freedom, with most panelists expressing concern about the precedent.
• The new Melania Trump documentary defies mainstream media criticism and becomes a populist hit, with its creators defending both the project’s integrity and their own reputations amid tabloid scandals.

If you missed this episode, expect unfiltered takes on the impotence of legal systems before power, the politicization of survivor justice, media tribalism, and the ways celebrity and politics shape (or warp) public narratives.

Transcript

[Don Lemon]

I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.

[Piers Morgan]

Did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law?

[Mark Eiglash]

No, he didn't. It's not even close. And I don't do politics. I do just legal.

[Eric Bolling]

He broke into an ongoing church service. They need him as a useful idiot. Took their push to open immigration at all costs.

[Brett Ratner]

Do you think you're the devil himself?

[Mark Beckham]

No, but I do have a good mirror.

[Anna Kasparian]

What was really going on with Epstein? Because Epstein was more than just a. A serial pedophile and a pervert.

[Eric Bolling]

Follow the damn money. It always works.

[Tara Palmeri]

What about just listening to the women?

[Piers Morgan]

The picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it. What is your response to that picture? More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos were made public in the latest release of the Epstein files. We're a long way from the waves of high profile prosecutions we were promised, but at the very least, a series of high profile men are being publicly humbled by toe curling details about the nature of their relationship with a convicted sex offender. Lord Mandelson, already sacked as US Ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his underpants and accused of taking cash from the paedophile. The former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him on Royal property. Richard Branson offers friendly PR advisor at a single man's right to enjoy women. Anytime you're in the area, we'd love to see you, he writes, as long as you bring your harem. Elon Musk, who unleashed political havoc by accusing Trump and others of being in the Epstein files, is himself in in the Epstein files, asking to be invited to the wildest party on Epstein Island. There's also chilling footage of Epstein himself. In a long interview with Steve Bannon.

[Brett Ratner]

The devil himself said, I'm going to exchange some dollars for you for your child's life. Do you think you're the devil himself?

[Mark Beckham]

No, but I do have a good mirror.

[Brett Ratner]

It's a serious question. Do you think you're the devil himself?

[Mark Beckham]

I don't know. Why would you say that?

[Brett Ratner]

Because you have all the attributes. You're incredibly smart.

[Mark Beckham]

You remember the devil.

[Eric Bolling]

Somebody knows.

[Piers Morgan]

What? The devil's brilliant. You read Milton's Paradise Lost? No.

[Mark Beckham]

The devil scares me.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, there's a lot more to come. As journalists around the world pour through the 3 million pages of documents. The Trump administration has made so many mistakes over the Epstein files that some people will never be satisfied that they have the full story. Promising Total transparency and then inventing endless reasons to be anything but transparent was at best a strategic error. There may well have been solid reasons for it, but as an exercise in media management and public support, it was a huge mistake. And funny enough, that's exactly how I feel about the decision to charge Don Lemon. It seems very plausible that he technically broke the law and incriminated himself while embedded with with the ICE protesters who interrupted a church service. But what are they actually trying to achieve? President Trump broke the law in the Stormy Daniels case, but convicting him on what most people considered frivolous grounds ended up backfiring massively. A few weeks ago, Don Lemon was a middling podcaster who was only ever seen in clips of other people calling him a moron. Now he's a free speech martyr, showing up at the Grammys for a bigger standing ovation than Bad Bunny. If Don Lemon's convicted, you'll have to see a lot more of him, which nobody really asked for. And the moral of all these stories is a simple old adage. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Well, let's hear from my panel. Anna Kasparian, the host and executive producer at the Young Turks. Tara Palmeri, host of the Tara Palmeri Show. Mark Iglash, who's the criminal defence attorney. Megyn Kelly, contributor and host of the Edge, Eric Bolly. Well, welcome to all of you. Mark Iglash, let's come to you first of all about the pure legality of the Epstein files. I've seen Todd Blanche and other people representing the administration who've come out and said, look, it's all out there. Now, this is what we're going to release. 3 million documents, videos, images. We have determined from our analysis that there is nothing in them that constitutes a crime. Therefore, we can't prosecute anybody. Now, it strikes me that might be true. It might be. In all these documents, there is no prima facie evidence of a crime. It doesn't mean crimes didn't take place. It just means there isn't the evidence they took place. What is your assessment?

[Mark Eiglash]

That is a distinction. We know crimes took place. We know there are people who harmed children who are not being prosecuted. We know that anyone who's intellectually honest knows that occurred. But there's a whole nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And prosecutors are saying, look, association with Epstein, not enough. Photos with him and around him, not enough. There's gotta be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And it falls way short of that. And I applaud them for that. Because you don't lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong. When you lower the bar to get these creeps, which I would love to see them get them, then they're lowering the bar for you. And God forbid you're accused of something.

[Tara Palmeri]

But why not just. Yeah, why not just do an investigation? If you, if you have a lead, you have tips, you've got, you've got survivors, victims of Jeffrey Epstein who have lists of men that they've been trafficked to. Why wouldn't you follow up on it?

[Mark Eiglash]

And actually sure, yeah they should. And I'm assuming they made that announcement after they looked into it and they don't have additional information that takes you to the highest burden under the law. If they fell short and they're just going knee jerk, we, we don't have a couple of photos of somebody actually doing something, then yeah, they should be condemned for that. But I'm assuming that they did look into it and if they, if there's not enough proof then they shouldn't just go because maybe or probably someone did something.

[Tara Palmeri]

Wait a second though. You're assuming that they did these follow up investigations. I'm not assuming any investigations be inside of the Epstein files. Wouldn't you?

[Mark Eiglash]

Just so we're clear. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Don't, don't put me like that. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you legal analysis to simply suggest if they haven't done a thorough investigation, shame on them. They should if they're making that announcement. Let's assume for a moment, not necessarily that it's truthful, that if they did do a thorough analysis and they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then that's it. You don't then lower the bar to go after someone you think might have done something absent the proof. That's all I'm saying.

[Tara Palmeri]

But let's just factor in that there is an Epstein files transparency act, right. And we are supposed to be seeing all of the files related to that. Wouldn't you assume that a follow up investigation would be involved, would be included in the Epstein files transparency act because when I look through these files, I don't see an FBI that is actually doing any follow up calling, you know, the attorneys for the men that are accused. They don't appear to be doing anything to follow up on this.

[Mark Eiglash]

You don't know, you have. No, listen with utmost.

[Tara Palmeri]

Yeah, we all, we have, we Have a.

[Mark Eiglash]

You go and then I'll go. You go and then I'll go.

[Tara Palmeri]

We have the files. Where else would they be?

[Anna Kasparian]

There's only been an effort to cover everything up from the FBI. The FBI has like literally told us that there are no Epstein files. And then it turns out there are 6 million Epstein files of which we've only had access to 3 million, which are of course heavily redacted. You know, Epstein responded to an email that was redacted and his response to that email was, loved. The torture videos. Why did they redact the name of the individual who sent Epstein torture videos? Why can't we know who that person is and why hasn't that person been prosecuted? What are the torture videos?

[Mark Eiglash]

There's a lot that's being uncovered in.

[Anna Kasparian]

The Epstein files that make it clear that wrongdoing and criminality occurred and there were no charges and the FBI was part of the COVID up.

[Mark Eiglash]

Well, if they were, then shame on them and they should be held accountable. What I do take exception to is that they committed. The worst thing that you can do is, and that is include victims names in documentation and it should not have been done. There are over 40 victims whose names were not redacted and the best they can say is oopsie, to me, that is offensive and outrageous.

[Anna Kasparian]

They made sure to redact the names of the perverts that were sending torture videos, though. They made sure to redact that.

[Piers Morgan]

Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night, all natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results. Optimum Day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day. Optimum Night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces. England legend Michael owen who lost £40. AFTV's Robbie, who lost more than £100. To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or or visit oxfordnatural.com peers and here's the best part. Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order. Get 70% off with the code. Piers. Well, I agree with Anna that you read some of this stuff and you're like, well, where's the rest of that thread? Who are they talking about? What are we getting here? I want to play a clip from Donald Trump. This is on, I think Air Force One as he flew to Florida on Saturday responding to news that he's in these files. I didn't see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical left. Tara, it strikes me that with Donald Trump having spoken multiple times to David Boies, one of America's most reputed criminal lawyers for the last 50 years, he represented Virginia Giuffre and many other victims and survivors. He has always been adamant to me that from everything he'd seen, he did not believe that Donald Trump did anything criminal in relation to Epstein. However, he did say that he thought other men had and that they should be chased and prosecuted. So it could be. I mean, some of the. More out. I think it's important for viewers, for example, to understand that in these files, there's a lot of truly outrageous, shocking things, much of which was immediately looked at and dismissed as fantasy. And then there's other stuff which is clearly well documented, is coming from the mouths of the people who have been reported on, which is a different kettle of fish when it comes to how you report these things. I do think it's important to clarify that, because some of the stuff that's been in there about Trump is literally people just ringing in who probably hate him, who want to cause him trouble, saying outlandish things which are not true. So that is also part of the mix here, isn't it?

[Tara Palmeri]

Yeah. I'm sure there are some tips in there that are just. That are. Anyone can call into the FBI and say things. Right. As for David Boies, I've been talking to survivors, and a lot of them are really upset to see how closely connected he was with Jeffrey Epstein. If you look through the emails, actually, David Boies and Jeffrey Epstein exchanged a lot of emails, and David Boies was Virginia Giuffre's attorney. So he knows for a fact that there were many other men that were involved in this case. As for President Trump, I mean, we know that there was one Jane Doe, Katie Johnson, who filed complaint three times against him ahead of the 2016 election. I think any of these tips that have been sent in, they. They should have been investigated. I don't see any phone calls to the president or his attorney, Alan Garten. There's only one email that includes. I think it's. It's Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers for the victims, trying to reach Alan Garten to speak to President Trump. But I don't see any interaction between the FBI and President Trump's attorneys, as they would be, I would assume, would be part of the investigative process when you're going through all the tips that are against him. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that they were friends for a period of over a decade during the height of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. And many of the survivors remembered seeing him. It's, you know, what does.

[Piers Morgan]

But, but, but let me. Okay, but let me bring in, let me bring in Eric here because I think it's interesting, the timeline on all this, because I've taken a position from the early days of this, there are two types of deniability here. There's the plausible deniability, which is people who cease contact with Epstein once he was convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor. And then there are the people that carried on consorting with him after that. And one of those is Elon Musk, who's gone on a kind of tear on his own social media platform, X, you know, vehemently denying he ever accepted any invitation to go onto the Epstein island or go to any of the parties, any of these things. And yet we're seeing emails in this dump of documents where he clearly would like to, he's asking which night is the wildest. You know, he's planning to come. The fact that he didn't, in the end seemingly go to any doesn't mean that he wasn't keen to. And this was years after Epstein's conviction. So I think Elon Musk has some difficult questions to answer that he's apparently very keen not to answer as he tries to present himself as the knight in shining armor that wanted to blow the lid on all this, which is why did you actually, you know, have this kind of relationship with Epstein, knowing he's a convicted pedophile.

[Eric Bolling]

So, Pierce, I think what we're, we're looking at right now, and I'm listening to Tara being outraged about Donald Trump, very conveniently not mentioning a former President Bill Clinton, who, you know, may or may not be claiming he didn't have any involvement with any underage girls. Yet there are pictures of him swimming in hot tubs with Ghislaine Maxwell and some very young looking ladies.

[Tara Palmeri]

Not sure I wasn't Clinton.

[Eric Bolling]

Allow me to.

[Tara Palmeri]

He's not the President.

[Eric Bolling]

Just allow me to finish. May I just please show. The fact that I wasn't asked about him, a former president, is shocking. Here's my point. Not that you're being biased at all. My point is the media right now, people who consume media, on the last, you know, three or four tidbits of information and what's happened is these guys, some of These guys. And I've been an advocate for getting all of the files out without redactions or a few, you know, as few possible redactions as for national security safety as possible. And I'm telling you, what I'm feeling is Elon Musk is saying, I wasn't there, had nothing to see. I had Alan Dershowitz on my show Friday a couple of days ago, and he now is claiming there was no sexual trafficking, there was no underage girls. And I said, allen, Bill Clinton's on the call logs. We have pictures of him at the island. He said something like, yeah, but that doesn't make him guilty. No, it doesn't, but an investigation might. My point is, let's keep digging. Let's not let them change the narrative. Including Donald Trump. Including Donald Trump. Don't let him say I never did anything. I don't know. I would like to know what every one of these on that alley weren't.

[Brett Ratner]

Right.

[Piers Morgan]

I agree. I mean, Anna, it seems to me you gotta go where the evidence is. The good thing about this latest dump is there's so much of it. Journalists around the world are poring through it. Obviously, it's taking a long time. But like I said, in relation to Elon Musk, for example, we can see a direct conflict between what he is saying publicly and what we are reading with our own eyes about what he intended in terms of these parties and so on. And my sense about people that do that is, well, if they're not being completely honest about that, then are they being honest about other things? I don't know the answer, but it certainly starts to raise a lot of eyesight.

[Anna Kasparian]

I know the answer. The answer is no. They're not being honest about other things. Come on, Pierce. I mean, you're a smart man. You're not naive. I mean, even if they weren't implicated in the Epstein file, anyone who takes what the rich and powerful have to say at face value are being, I mean, unbearably naive. But, look, I would just be wary of anyone who's attempting to make this very serious issue a partisan issue. Because, make no mistake about it, people from both sides of the political aisle have been implicated in this. So I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, which is what was really going on with Epstein. Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a person. He was an incredibly powerful man who was, by the way, in multiple instances in the files that were just released, talking about his work for Mossad talking about his work for the Rothschilds. I mean, it just goes on and on. And so can we discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place and which government that's a special ally of the United States put him up to it? And do we really want to be allies with a country that kidnaps young girls for rape and just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy? That's the big underlying issue here that no one's talking about.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah. Well, let me bring Eric back in. I mean, Eric, I would say Eric also just before you respond, I mean, the Bill Gates stuff is fascinating too, right? Because there you've got a situation where they found a draft of an email that Epstein appears to have constructed for one of the Gates senior aides who fears he's going to get fired. And it's basically a blackmail note. Now, we don't know if it ever got sent by the aide to Gates. We do know that they came to some settlement, some arrangement apparently. But in it it makes all these scandalous allegations which would have been from his chief aide who would have known to Bill Gates to presumably try and either leverage a payoff or to avoid being fired. He accuses him of getting an STD from a Russian prostitute, I think at one stage, and then getting medicine to try and, you know, stop his then wife getting it and so on. All pretty tawdry sleazy stuff. Now, again, we only know partly this because we don't know if that ever got sent or how true that material is. But he's there. Deeply embarrassing for Bill Gates. There's also, as Anna touched on there, there are much wider geopolitical dimensions to this. Not least Vladimir Putin who has a relationship clearly with Epstein. What was going on here? The big question about Epstein is where did all his huge amounts of money come from? Could it be because we haven't really worked this out yet, could it be he was being paid by the Russians to compromise a lot of very high profile American people? It could well be right. Or British politicians.

[Eric Bolling]

I will add Larry Summers in that mix to very liberal darling on the left, former Harvard, former Obama Treasury Department, former Harvard University professor, president had to resign from AI Based on what was in the AI board was in, in the Epstein files. I will add something Anna said something very important. Where did all the money come from? How did he make all connections? If you watch the Bannon interview within the released Epstein files, it struck me and I never knew Jeffrey Epstein. I've known Bannon for 100 years. I've never known Jeffrey Epstein. He's not a smart man. He wasn't a smart man. He wasn't an intellectual by any means. He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups and I don't know who. And I think therein lies some of the most important information that could come from an additional investigation. FBI, CIA, whoever. But dig into further where those funds came from. Not a smart man. Listen to his answers. It's almost pedestrian in nature. Yet he somehow amassed $60 billion of worth and had the strings to pull at some of the most influential people on the planet.

[Piers Morgan]

You've seen their vibrant ads illuminating billboards and train stations for many years now. It's time you actually saw the show. Shen Yun is celebrating its 20th anniversary. A dazzling run which has seen iconic performances at iconic venues like the Kennedy center, the London Coliseum and the Sydney Opera House. Each season tours to more than 200 cities worldwide. You'll see classical Chinese dance, a live orchestra and stunning animated backdrops which bring to life 5,000 years of Chinese civilization. World class performers in flawless costumes tell a story of myths, legends, warriors and heavenly realms all set to stunning music. It's been described as inspiring, uplifting and life affirming. And if you're looking for an unforgettable gift for your family, I really recommend that you check it out. Visit Shenyum.com peers to waive all ticketing fees when you order. That's Shenyum.com peers and you know what's interesting? Well, Tara, what's interesting to me is in the UK we're seeing very high profile people dropping like dominoes as a consequence of these files. Lord Mandelson is finished. He's had the whip from the Labour Party removed last night. He's likely to lose his place in the House of Lords and so he should. He might well face criminal prosecution for corruption in public office given the stories about the money that was coming from Epstein in what appears to have been a trade for top secret information about forthcoming policy business initiatives by the UK government when Mandelson was in the government. So there's a lot of stuff going on with him, but he's finished. The former Prince Andrew Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, he's finished. And it's a question really for him that the British Prime Minister now says he should put himself in front of the investigative authorities under oath and say what he actually knows. I think most British people agree with that. So you're seeing a lot of very famous people being dragged down by this. In the UK we're Not seeing the same thing happen in the US we're seeing a lot of names, but we're not seeing any consequence so far. Do you think we're going to.

[Tara Palmeri]

No, I don't. Because I think at this point we haven't seen. We still haven't even seen 3 million of the files of the 6 million. And they could be withholding them for national interest purposes. Which means that may. There will continue to be gaping holes in the various theories that everyone put forward about who was he working for. I've always believed that Jeffrey Epstein was doing. Was conducting some sort of compromise for who? You know, we still don't know. And. And I do think that the United States.

[Piers Morgan]

Right.

[Tara Palmeri]

And I do think the United States is still protecting Prince Andrew in these files. I think there's. He's not mentioned. His relationship with Saudi Arabia isn't mentioned very frequently. There's so many connections across the world that we all know about. People who have studied the Epstein story that we still won't be getting in the files. And because we don't have the kind of leadership within our administration, there's no independent counsel leading this. We don't know what we don't know right now. And there are 3 million files being withheld. And I don't think.

[Piers Morgan]

Let me bring.

[Tara Palmeri]

Anyone Will face consequences because they haven't.

[Piers Morgan]

Right. I suspect we will, but it's going to take more time in America. Mark, you wanted to jump in? Yeah. Okay.

[Mark Eiglash]

So anyone who had anything to do with his nefarious criminal conduct should be punished. I think that's all wonderful. That's what we all want. The problem also is, you know, when we say their name is in the Epstein file that now has become associated with. So they must have then been on his plane or been to his island and then maybe participated in having sex with children. That's a real problem, too. We got the pitchforks up. And there are people who are involved in construction projects who are simply meeting people through him. They went on some traveling with him. It had nothing to do with going to his island. I don't like this big net being thrown out there and catching it. Let me finish. And catching anyone who had mere association with him but had nothing to do with his abhorrent behavior.

[Tara Palmeri]

Okay. Mark, can I just tell you as someone who's covered this story and spoken to many, many, many survivors. And it was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about. There were always young girls around. He was a convicted felon. And all of these high net Worth people can continue to spend time with the sex.

[Mark Eiglash]

It's dangerous. Every single person ever around Epstein then knew, knew that he was having sex with children. Is that your position?

[Piers Morgan]

No, no, but Mark, Hang on, hang on, hang on. Every everybody post 2009 knows he's a convicted people 100%.

[Mark Eiglash]

We're talking before then.

[Piers Morgan]

So they can't take people who are.

[Mark Eiglash]

Just part of the file.

[Piers Morgan]

They can't pretend they didn't know what he was.

[Mark Eiglash]

Well, of course. No, I'm not talking about that. That's indefensible. I'm talking about people before then who were merely in some letter or reference now as part of the Epstein file. And then all of a sudden that means erroneously somehow that they were sleeping with children. Get those who did, I want those who did to be punished. But those who are merely associated with him because the guy was a big networker and a big business guy shouldn't be thrown to the wolves.

[Piers Morgan]

What is interesting, I mean, Richard Branson. Well, Richard Branson. Hang on, Tara. Richard Branson, for example, came out with a statement was quite interesting. He said that after some initial interaction with Epstein, he then began to have some suspicions, got his team to look into Epstein, discovered the conviction, discovered some other stuff, didn't like it, and ended all contact. Now, assuming that is right, and I've known Richard a long time, I'm sure that's probably correct. If he's saying that publicly, then that is what a lot of people should have done. But what is clear is a lot of people not only didn't do that, a lot of them made statements, whether it's Andrew, whether it's Mandelson, whether it's others, where they categorically denied having anything to do with him after his conviction. And now we know they were lying. And again, it comes earlier if we.

[Mark Eiglash]

Know that they deserve.

[Piers Morgan]

You're right. But my point being, if they're lying about the timeline, then what else are they lying about? Would be my obvious question. Let me just. I want to read what Elon Musk has said just to be fair to him. He says nobody's fought harder for full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abuse children more than I did, knowing full well the legacy media, far left propagandists and those who are actually guilty would 1, admit nothing, 2, deny everything, 3 make counter accusations against me? I knew I'd be smeared relentlessly despite never having attended his parties or been on his Lolita express plane or set foot on his creepy island or done anything wrong. At all. Nevertheless, the extreme pain of being accused of being the opposite of who I am was worth it. The strong must protect those who cannot protect themselves, especially vulnerable children. I will gladly accept any amount of future pain to do more to protect kids and give them a chance to grow up and have happy lives. And again, what I would say back to Elon Musk is, okay, let's take you at face value only, you know, so far. But this flies completely in the face of the emails we're reading, which is that years after the conviction of Epstein for pedophilia, you are very, very keen to go to this island that you now scorn. And so the public statements are not consistent with the real time correspondence that we're all seeing with our own eyes.

[Anna Kasparian]

I mean, look, to Mark's point so far, there's nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk. Like, there isn't enough evidence to actually prosecute him for anything. But I agree with you in that, in the court of public opinion, it's not a good look, as is the case with our Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who said that he had cut off all communication with Epstein in the early 2000s. And then now we're learning that he was actually communicating with Epstein in 2012. Again, that in and of itself is not enough to prosecute him of any criminality. Right, but at the same time, why are you lying to the American people? And more importantly, why were you so keen to your, you know, the word you like to use. Why are you so keen to reach out to and have communication with Epstein after he had already been convicted? And yes, got that sweetheart deal as a result of Alan Dershowitz negotiating it. Why are you still willing to talk to this guy? And by the way, one other thing I wanna mention about Dershowitz in particular, because anyone who mentions Dershowitz's relationship with Epstein, as I have done in the past, gets threatened by Dershowitz with a lawsuit. And I never retract my statements because I would love nothing more than to go through that discovery process. But in the files that were just released, you know, there's an email that Norm Finkelstein sent out essentially condemning Dershowitz because Jane Doe number three said this in sworn testimony. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein. So my question to everyone who has Dershowitz on as if he's some sort of expert who should be taken seriously, who has an opinion that should be valued in any way. Will you please stop having that disgusting man on your show?

[Eric Bolling]

No, no, I agree.

[Tara Palmeri]

I won't.

[Eric Bolling]

Hold on, guys. Hold on. I turned him on.

[Tara Palmeri]

I agree.

[Eric Bolling]

And I told him, eric, point blank, you cannot rewrite history. Alan, we know way too much. You can claim you're innocent all you want, but you can't go and say therefore, now all of a sudden. Bill Clinton never got involved in these things. No, no. He literally said to be on. Eric, take a look at it. That he's.

[Anna Kasparian]

He's the one who got that disgusting serial rapist a sweetheart deal, and he lied about the Epstein files. He's a disgrace. I'll tell you what happened on your show.

[Eric Bolling]

He went and refuted all. He refuted all minor sex trafficking. On that, I was blown away. So, Alan, who are you? Why are you doing this? Pierce, I was down with you and Alan once before where he claimed to know everything. He's still trying to stay in the media. This way, I think he's feeling a little bit more confident. But I'm not gonna not have him on Anna. I want to continue to hold his feet to the fire, which. Which I did watch the interview. And if you think I wasn't hard enough on him, I'll.

[Piers Morgan]

I'll eat it.

[Eric Bolling]

But I think I was. Can I just. One final thought. We're having a lot of speculation on what happened, what didn't happen. There's an easy. It's not easy. There's a very effective way to find out what really happened. Follow the damn money. It always works. Find out how Epstein made his money.

[Tara Palmeri]

And what about just listening to the women who have testified? What about the women who have testified? Why. What about the survivors who have testified under oath? Why is their word not enough? Why do we have to follow the money to know what happened?

[Eric Bolling]

No one said it's not enough.

[Piers Morgan]

I actually think we need. I actually think we need. You know what I think? We listen to the women. We listen to the women. We follow the money trail, and we get people under oath.

[Eric Bolling]

Right.

[Piers Morgan]

With a penalty of perjury that tends to concentrate the mind. Right. Okay, look, I want to pivot to the other big story of the weekend, which is the arrest of Don Lemon, Former CNN anchor. Actually took over my office when I left cnn. So I've known Don a long time. You know, I thought about this quite long and hard. Let's take a look at. First of all, a bit of the scene that created the environment for his arrest. This is the original incident.

[Don Lemon]

This is a juxtaposition. This shows you just how divided America is when you look at the protesters here and then you look at the people there who are praying. And you know what was the interesting thing? If these two groups could just get together, they might figure out what to do instead. I don't know if the people here are interested in talking to the protesters, but perhaps they should come in, pray together, and talk together. Last night, the DOJ sent a team of federal agents to arrest me in the middle of the night for something that I've been doing for the last 30 years, and that is covering the news. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless of other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them, and I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court. Thank you all.

[Piers Morgan]

So let me start with Mark Eiglash again from a legal perspective here. So, you know, I thought about this long and hard, heard all the different arguments, everyone coming out, a lot of them from partisan traps to very quickly either exonerate or convict him. And I kind of reached the conclusion, as I do with most situations involving journalists in this situation, which is you shouldn't be criminalizing journalists doing their job. You may not like Don Lemon, you may not like the way he behaved that day. You may not like the way he's behaved since. But to go after a journalist who was clearly there reporting on what was happening, I think crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed, whether you're on the left or the right. And it seemed to me a bit of tit for tat for what happened to some people who were kind of Citizen journalists on January 6th who got put in prison. This is revenge. They're going after now, people on the left for doing similar things and so on. I think it's a very slippery slope. But, Mark, from a pure legal perspective, did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law?

[Mark Eiglash]

No, he didn't. It's not even close. And I don't do politics. I do just legal. And the First Amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did, cover an event. So those who say that he did interfere with people's ability to worship. There's a difference between incidental interference and intentional interference. One needs intentional interference to be found guilty of a criminal act. He wasn't there. It appears from the facts, ongoing service. Hold on. I was just speaking. I wasn't through with my thoughts. He intentionally was there to gather facts, but his intention falls way short factually of intending to be there to interfere with people's ability to worship. So again, if there's just incidental interference, that's not enough. And clearly the chilling effect is there too. The message goes out that anyone who's merely present at an event can be arrested. And that's real problematic.

[Eric Bolling]

Mark, he was also there to gather facts. He broke into an ongoing church service. He busted in. That's not in an accidental. Oh, I didn't mean to break up your story. What, what facts was Don Lemon looking for, Mark? What facts was he. He was looking to. To create a scene to get the cameras rolling, to get his own face on the evening news, which he did. And I said when a minute happened, they just propped up Don Lemon, not because they like his journalism, because they need him as a useful idiot to their, their push to open immigration at all costs. And by the way, Mark, I would argue with you that I think protecting people's right to worship is right up there, if not superseding the First Amendment, the right for journalists to cover a story.

[Mark Eiglash]

We don't disagree on that. The question is, again, maybe again, everything is fact sensitive. Was he covering this as a journalist? Was he reporting this on Livestream, which I was told, if he was, the question is, do they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his purpose was to interfere with people's right to worship or whether he was there covering it as a journalist that may have interfered incidentally with people's right to worship? And therein.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, this isn't the crucial. Well, I think. Well, let me bring in Anna here. But I think the crucial distinction for me is you can certainly construct an argument that the protesters had a pre planned intention to disrupt people in their place of worship. Right. So the question for me was then, is Don Lemon part of the protest group or is he tangentially, a journalist who knows it's going to happen, goes in and reports on what happens, but he's not actually a member of the protest group doing the intervention. And that's where for me, I felt that's it. From a legal perspective, I think it's hard to prove that he is not one removed from this. He's not actually doing. Intervening. He's gone in and he's watching and he's observing and he's reporting.

[Anna Kasparian]

Yeah, I mean, look, first let me just say I really appreciate your analysis on this, Mark, especially from a legal perspective. And I agree with you overall, Pierce. I think that the evidence that we've seen so far indicates that Don Lemon got a tip that this protest was gonna happen. He wanted to cover it. Now, of course, he does have his own biases, there's no question about that. But the real question is, was he there to participate in said demonstration or was he there to document it? And obviously this is gonna play out in court. But the point that I agree with you most on is in regard to how counterproductive it was to arrest him in the first place. Let me first note though that there was a second independent journalist who was also, as a result of covering what happened during this protest. I think that sets a really, really bad precedent when it comes to journalism. Regardless of what you think about Don Lemon or the independent journalist, you should be able to have journalists there to document what's going on. That is their job. But in regard to, you know, and.

[Piers Morgan]

Tara, it seems to me, it seems to me, Tara, that all that's happened out of this is Don Lemon has got absolutely. What he's been dreaming of ever since he got turfed out of CNN and started his own business is he's now, he's now a martyr. You know, I watched him at the Clive Davies, we got a clip, I think, of him getting a standing ovation from the star studded crowd at the pre Grammys party that Clive Davis has every year. Let's take a look. I mean, Don Lemon's had a long dream, a long dream. He's had a dream to, to be at the Grammys or Grammy parties and that happens. He's the Martin Luther King at the Grammys.

[Tara Palmeri]

Listen, like this is part of the job of being a journalist. Like it's one of the first things you do. You cover movements, you cover protests, you go where things happen. If you had to go into a cave to interview the Taliban, should I be arrested because I'm in there with the Taliban? If I witness violence there? I'm not a co conspirator. Eric, if you know anything about journalism, you would know that being present at an event does not mean you are, as a journalist, documenting.

[Eric Bolling]

It does not mean they weren't protesting. Tara. They weren't protesting. They were trying to worship, by the way. And if you're going to hide behind that cloak of a journalist can break into anywhere they want trespass because under the guise of I'm doing a story. That's insanity. There has to be a line drawn. They broke into an ongoing church service. Those parishioners weren't protesting anything. They weren't supporting ICE did The pastor happen to have some sort of connection. Who cares that does so any. Under your theory? I, as a journalist, I have a, I have a White House. What about hard pass? I'm a journalist to cover Trump. I can go anywhere I want with that. Break into any. I can break into a mosque and find out how many Muslims there are illegal just because I have that pass. Of course not.

[Tara Palmeri]

I mean, if you were following law enforcement or you're following in a news event, I, I don't know the exact legality, but I know under the first amendment are. There are many. We are covered under the first Amendment. In the second, you create this, these lines like, what about these right wing influencer journalists, whatever you want to call them, that follow break ins into Planned Parenthoods? Should they not be allowed to do that? They should.

[Eric Bolling]

They don't break you in terror. They get arrested outside the Planned Parenthood.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let me, let me offer some guidance. Let me offer some guidance.

[Anna Kasparian]

So let's say analogy real quick. Okay, Just real quick, Real quick, Eric. Let's say you are covering some sort of protest where a group of people break into a mosque as people are worshiping. You're there documenting it. As a reporter. Right. I would be livid if, let's say the Biden administration's DOJ decided to arrest you because at the end of the day, you work in media, you're documenting what's happening. Now, the individuals who took part in the actual demonstration did break a law. They did violate the right to practice your faith to worship, and they should face consequences for that. I mean, that's why you signed up.

[Eric Bolling]

Let me offer some guidance that under Pierce's definition of what happened or question about what happened, Don Lemon wasn't there to cover it. Don Lemon was the leader of that whatever that break in, wasn't.

[Piers Morgan]

He wasn't.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let me jump in here.

[Piers Morgan]

Let me jump in here.

[Anna Kasparian]

He was supporting.

[Piers Morgan]

Let me bring Mark in again from a. Let me bring Mark in. Let's change Mark in Mark.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let's change the facts. Let's say that Lemon, while he was there, chanted, he directed the protesters, he blocked aisles. He starts doing that, then he is participating. It's very different. Absent those facts, he's there covering. And I agree with Pierce on this one. Again, you don't want to have that chilling effect when you have journalists going in to cover something and you get the wrong politics and then people get arrested. That's a real slippery slope and a real dangerous scenario.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah, I would say you guys are.

[Eric Bolling]

Opening up a Very dangerous can of worms allowing or. Or covering for journalists. And Tara points out that, yeah, there are right wing little influencers who are dying for the same opportunity that Don Lemon just presented himself with to become, you know, some sort of hero to your side. And if it entails joining protests or quote unquote, covering protests, but you're right there with them and also getting cameras in the face of the people that they're protesting against, you know, the time.

[Tara Palmeri]

I mean, Tucker is always going to Planned Parenthood journalism and he's. Yeah, they do that all the time. They're just not being arrested, but they literally do it all the time. Who do you think's covering the Planned Parenthood protests?

[Eric Bolling]

Again, there's differences inside the church. That is a.

[Tara Palmeri]

They go inside the Planned Parenthood, which is like a private property, and they do this and they don't get arrested. I don't feel it's any different as well.

[Eric Bolling]

I think they're right, you know, the o' Keefe who goes inside, you know, an abortion clinic and tapes. I have a problem with that too.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, well, I think the one thing I would say just to conclude this is people need to be intellectually consistent, right? In the way they view these things. And if you start getting tribal where it's okay for your side but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest. We saw it all with the Jimmy Kimmel saga a few months ago. We're seeing it again now. We've seen it over the ice. Agents, you've got to be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's your side or not. What is your view about people that do xyz and then you've got to be consistent each time it's done by anybody, then I can respect you. The moment people chop and change because of their political persuasion, I lose all respect for them. But that was a great panel debate. Thank you all very much.

[Mark Eiglash]

Thanks, Piers.

[Eric Bolling]

Thank you.

[Anna Kasparian]

Thank you.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, finally, it's fair to say that before its release this weekend, reviews for the new Melania documentary film from mainstream press were less than glowing. A cheeseball infomercial of staggering inertia said Variety. Dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing, said the UK Guardian. Glossy but curiously impersonal, said the New York Times. However, judging by the box office, the film has been a smash hit. Melania is officially the highest grossing documentary of the last 10 years. And joining me now are Melania's director, Brad Rettner and producer Mark Beckham, who's Also a senior advisor to the First Lady. Well, welcome to both of you.

[Mark Beckham]

Welcome. Thanks for having us, Peter. It's a long time.

[Piers Morgan]

It's been a long time. It certainly has. And I've got to say, I watched the movie, I enjoyed the movie. I'm not an impartial viewer of the movie. I've known the first lady 20 years, since I first did Celebrity Apprentice and spent a lot of time around the Trumps. I've seen her many times over the years. I've always liked her. I think she has in private. She's very warm, she's funny, she's smart, she's, I think, very self aware and I think in public she's been remarkably, I think, skilled in the way she'd been a First lady amid unbelievable pressure. You know, this is somebody who's had to watch her husband get shot at, nearly assassinated, people try to put him in jail. Obviously all the scandal that swirls around with Trump at any given moment, all the division and contention and so on, and yet amid it all has been this very calm rock in the form of Melania, quite mysterious in many ways, if you don't know her. So I watched it and I enjoyed it. And I think that what's interesting to me is watching people review it who clearly have an agenda against the Trumps. They're trashing it. And conversely, people who love the Trumps all saying it's the greatest movie of all time. I don't think it's either. I don't think even you would say it's the greatest movie of all time. But what's been your assessment of how this has played out?

[Mark Beckham]

Well, it shows, I think, everyone, that you can't really trust the critics. You know, we have something that's unprecedented. We have an A CinemaScore. I don't know how many of mine, I don't think any of my movies that I've made in the past have ever had an A cinema score. So, you know, usually a good movie is a B plus or an A minus. So it shows you the separation between the critics and the audience, the true audience. I mean, to have. I think it's the largest spread. I think the number on Rotten tomatoes is maybe 10%. It fluctuates between 6 and 10% based on new reviews coming in, and then it's got a 98 or 99% audience favor. So it's an interesting case study, if anything, to say the least, about how far away the critics are. Film criticism, when I grew up, was an art form, you know, Even though there was a bad review on a movie, if you read it, there was always an intellectual approach to it, and you still wanted to. You still were interested in seeing the movie, whether it had a good review or a bad review. And Rotten Tomatoes was kind of like the beginning of the destruction of our. Of the film business, in my opinion, Even though, interestingly enough, I had read somewhere that Rush Hour was the reason why Rotten Tomatoes was created. So I say that as the destruction of the film business, because now it's like if you have a. If your tomatoes rotten, people aren't interested in seeing the movie. And I think this film will kind of be groundbreaking in the analysis of film critics versus audience interest.

[Brett Ratner]

You know, Piers, if I may just jump in for a second.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah.

[Brett Ratner]

Just to make it simp. To put it in simple terms, the first lady and Brett Ratner put together an enjoyable film. It's created in a very cinematic, highly rich, stylized way. Great sound, great music, and it's a story that's never been told before. And this guy right here, Brett Ratner, was able to, I think, break ground and revolutionize the concept of documentary. Never do we see the first lady sitting there with an empty warehouse behind her as a talking head. Brett was able to go ahead and tell her story, this unprecedented story of an individual moving back into the White House as First lady of the United States, covering intimate moments with her family, her career, and her philanthropy in a way that's never been done before. I give this guy a ton of credit.

[Mark Beckham]

Thank you.

[Brett Ratner]

He put it together in a way that's groundbreaking, and that's why the rankings from the consumers are so high. It's enjoyable.

[Piers Morgan]

But it is. It is. Mark, It's a blue, red thing, isn't it? Where in the blue states, they're not going to see it, and they hate the Trumps and so on. In the red states, they love the Trumps. They're flocking to see it. A lot of women in particular are flocking to see it. I can see why. You know, I've said to Melania before that to me, you know, she's right up there with Jackie Kennedy as one of the great fashion icons of all the first ladies. And if you don't agree with that, either you're blind or you're just blindly partisan, because she clearly is. You've advised the first Lady. I know. For a while, the thing that struck me as interesting was it's quite a big move for her to go public like this. You know, I once said to her, you know, you remind me a bit of the Queen Mother and the Queen in the UK Royal family, he always had a mantra, never complain, never explain, and rarely be heard speaking in public. And she went, I know that quote, and I like that quote. And I tried to follow that quote. Yeah, here she is sort of peeling back the curtain and saying, okay, this is a bit more of me than I've ever shown you. That's not something you do lightly.

[Brett Ratner]

And it's way beyond fashion. For example, Brett was able to capture an initial meeting that triggered a series of events ultimately leading to the rescue of a human life in Gaza. And I can let Brett talk to that a little bit more. But there were so many moments in this 20 day period that Brett was able to capture with the first lady that today continue to play themselves out. The work she's doing with the United Nations General assembly for fostering the future together, it's all. It's really an interesting thing. This is much more than a fashion explosion. There's a lot more important action that the first lady takes and that Brett captured during this time period.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, Brett, one of the moments for me that I found really poignant and it just really cut, I think, to the reality that you're public property when you're a First lady, as you are President, but you've also got to deal with real life, private stuff. And there's a day in the 20 days where she starts the day at the memorial for Jimmy Carter, former president, obviously. And then that evening she's in a cathedral, a church, lighting a candle for her mother who died a year ago that day. And her and her mother were very, very close. So a very emotional day for her personally and a very big, big day for her publicly. And they're both around grief and people dying and being in places of worship. And I thought you brought that together really powerfully because it showed me that's the reality of being in public life is you've got to somehow juggle both things.

[Mark Beckham]

Yeah, she says she talks about it in the film. You know, her day job is as the first lady, but she also has to be a mother, you know, a wife. She has so many obligations. It's interesting that you say this because, you know, as a, as the director and the film crew, we have breaks in between. Right. We film and then we take breaks. But I'm there from the moment she wakes up in the morning till she goes to sleep. And on those breaks when we're either eating or changing out equipment, she's having high level meetings in between so her passion for her role as First Lady, I was saying to my, my producer, I was saying we should have a second crew just filming the meetings that she's having in between the filming, because those are as important as the stuff that we're filming. And she's so passionate about being the first lady in her service. And that was really, to me, incredibly impressive. How seriously and how passionate she is, how seriously she takes this, this role as first lady, which is, you know, unprecedented, obviously. And really also the love between, and the mutual respect and admiration between her and her husband, that's another thing that I was very proud of, that the film.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, that's really interesting.

[Mark Beckham]

He has the utmost.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah, yeah, I want to bring Mark in on that because I've known the Trumps, like I said, 20 years. So from soon after they got married in the early 2000s, and everybody else has always told me she hates him. She's the ice maiden. It's a transactional thing. She doesn't want to be there, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I've always said, you really don't get these two. I said, when you actually are around them together, they're very easy together. They're seemingly very happy together. There's a real, I think, mutual understanding of each other, which is often lost on the public, perhaps because a lot of the public can't view Trump through a normal lens at all. But, you know, what is your sense? You've obviously been around them as a couple. You know, my, my instinct is that warts and all, good, bad and ugly, they have a pretty good marriage.

[Brett Ratner]

Piers. They've been together since the 1990s. I've been working with the first lady since before Barron was born, over two decades. And I can tell you that she has a ton of respect for him. We talk about it in her best selling book, I See it Firsthand. It's her husband. They have an interesting life, right? He's a hardworking person and he's the president, so he's constantly working, constantly on the road, as is she. She's the hardest working person I have ever met. We never take a day off. It doesn't matter if it's the weekend, a holiday, late at night. So the interaction between these two people is really like any other husband and wife. Brett captures it on the film. Those moments that people are curious about, they shine and it's all there within those 20 days. It's really very natural.

[Piers Morgan]

Brett, I want to turn to two elephants in the room. We haven't addressed the first One's about the movie. Amazon acquired the rights for $40 million. Apparently spent as much as that, again on marketing. The total cost estimated around 75 million. Look, this is just a vanity thing by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, to curry favor with the Trump administration and so on. What is your response to that? And could this movie actually make money, given the roaring start it's had?

[Mark Beckham]

Well, first I'll respond to the first part, which is I could tell you for sure that the president had no idea that. And Mark can speak to that more. No idea that we were attempting to make a documentary. I don't know at what point did he discover it, but I know for a fact that he had no idea. She and Mark is the only two people I discussed. I was sworn to secrecy and we didn't want it to leak, obviously. And I know that he was not aware that we were even making the documentary up to the time that we got the offer from Amazon. So this is no quid pro quo. It's completely bs. It doesn't. It literally is just false. It's just not true. And what was the other question?

[Brett Ratner]

The economic feasibility?

[Mark Beckham]

Oh, yeah. So, yeah, that's a massively frustrating. I'm sorry. Well, couldn't make money. Because the truth is, in the world today that we're living, it's all about streaming. We wanted Melania and I decided, and it was really Melania's idea. I can't even take credit for it. But I was so happy because being a filmmaker and there's no better way to show a film, a piece of work of mine in a theater, you know, you hear Chris Nolan and all these big filmmakers talking about, we got to have a theatrical experience. They were fighting the streaming opportunities first and said, you got to have this movie. So Melania wanted this movie to be made because I said to her, why? You know, I'm not a documentary filmmaker. I've never made a documentary. And she's like, that's exactly why I want you, because you make movies for the big screen. So with that in mind, knowing that Amazon had purchased mgm and yeah, it's fantastic that we had a great, fantastic box office, but at the end of the day, the world is going to see this streaming globally, and we want the biggest audience to see this movie. So will it make money? I don't know how the economics within Amazon works, but I know if a lot of people around the world watch will be successful.

[Brett Ratner]

Piers, just to jump on the record real quickly, I remember the day that Melania and I Had the conversation. Melania came up with the creative concept. I am the only one that negotiated this deal on her behalf. I never had any interaction whatsoever with Jeff Bezos. President Trump was never involved. I'm the only one that had part in that negotiation. As far as the feasibility on the economic side, I believe that they didn't pay enough. This film is catapulted right away into a great opening weekend. It's the highest opening in documentary history over the past 14 years and we're just catapulting now. It's only been available for three days worldwide. Think about the deal, Piers. They have the theatrical release, then streaming of the film. And remember, we're going to be releasing a docu series during the summer which Bret will unpack a richer story. And then those two elements, the film and the docu series, will carry through over the next three years.

[Mark Beckham]

So to correct all of the.

[Piers Morgan]

You know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like to me, you guys in real time are gaming the negotiations for the sequel.

[Brett Ratner]

We undersold this one. Amazon, MGM took advantage of us.

[Piers Morgan]

Brett, I wanna just switch gears quickly to the very serious and big stories in the news. The Epstein files. As you know, a picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it. What is your response to that picture and what is your response to the wider scandal of the Epstein files?

[Mark Beckham]

Oh, well, that particular picture, picture in particular happened around 20 years ago. 20, 19. 20 to 21 years ago. Because that is a photograph of my fiance who invited me to this event and that's where the picture was taken. I was never been in contact with Jeffrey Epson before that photo and I was never in contact with him after. So that's a picture of me and my fiance at some event.

[Piers Morgan]

Wow. So who was the fiance, if you don't mind me asking?

[Mark Beckham]

You know, she doesn't want me sharing her name in the case. But that's my fiance. 100% was my fiance.

[Piers Morgan]

But you're not still.

[Mark Beckham]

I'm not with that.

[Piers Morgan]

I was gonna say. You're not still with that.

[Brett Ratner]

He's not engaged. It's the world's longest engaged.

[Mark Beckham]

20 years, 20 years ago I was engaged to her when that photo was taken, right? Yes.

[Piers Morgan]

And your position is you never met Epstein before or after that picture that night?

[Mark Beckham]

No, never, Never, never.

[Piers Morgan]

What is your opinion of the Epstein file scandal? As this more and more stuff cascades out, more and more people, very high profile people are dragged in. What is your view of this?

[Mark Beckham]

I mean, it's Horrible. You see, I've been somehow sucked in, you know, through an image. So, you know, there's so many stories about so many different people, it's hard to really follow and track what's truth and what's not truth. You could see where one photograph kind of puts me, you know, there with him. And then all the stories start to spin out. So I don't really know because I didn't know him. It wasn't really my world, you know, it's not really my world.

[Brett Ratner]

Piers, I could tell you, and I'm not sitting here as his defense attorney, I could tell you that this guy has been in the trenches making the film, promoting the film, and what's been top of mind for him has been building this number one highest opening for Melania. And I think that, you know, as far as that topic goes, I could understand why he might not have a bigger point of view.

[Piers Morgan]

You know what? I put the question to you about the picture. You've given a pretty emphatic answer. We'll leave it there. Brett and Mark, thank you both very much. Congrats on the success of the film, of course.

[Mark Beckham]

Thank you so much.

[Brett Ratner]

Thanks, Piers. Good to see you.

[Mark Beckham]

Happy to see you and out of the hospital.

[Brett Ratner]

Thanks for having us.

[Piers Morgan]

Not as happy as I'm. The president rang me, actually, a couple of days ago, and we were discussing the perils of steps, little steps that can cause enormous amounts of damage if you trip on them. But anyway, it's great to talk to you both. Thank you very much.

[Mark Beckham]

All right, thank you.

[Piers Morgan]

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.