← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
BUBBLE PEOPLE: Breaking Down Reaction to U.S. Military Action in Iran, Isaac Schorr on Epstein Files Insanity and Trump Accusations, & New Supreme Court Rulings
00:34:27
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:13]
B
Here.
- [00:14]
A
Welcome to the no Spin News for Tuesday, March 3, 2026. Stand up for your country. Nobody knows how this Iranian thing is going to turn out, so you turn on the television and there's speculation and guessing. And all of that presents a big problem for the TV pundits. What are they going to say? They don't know what to say, so they fall back on the cliche. We'll see. Okay, well, we're not doing that here. Any television person getting paid good money to say we'll see. I mean, they're insulting us. That's what they're doing. So that kind of blather is lazy and condescending and we will never stoop to that. I will tell you, I don't know how this is going to turn out. It is a military action that did not have to happen. This is an option. And, and now we're going to walk through that option in the Talking points Memo. All right, there's a new poll, CNN,004 adults nationwide. Now, adults means people who are not actively engaged in a political process. So registered voters, that's a step up from adults. And then likely voters is the top of the line for whatever reason. CNN just said adults. Okay. Democrat, 28. Republican 28. Independent, 44. That's over sampling independents, but I don't have a problem with it. First question, what is your view of U.S. decision to take military action in Iran? Approve. 41. Disapprove. 59. Democrats approve 18. Disprove 82. Standard, standard issue there. Republicans approve. 77. Five points down from the Democratic disapproval number. Disapproved, 23. So the 5% of conservative traditional Republicans are isolationists. They don't want any part of this. Okay. Keep that in mind. It's important when you're evaluating this kind of a public opinion survey. Next question. Do you think the US Military action will make Iran more of a threat to the USA? 54%. Less of a threat. 28%. Now, how could it make it more of a threat? How is that possible? They've already pledged to kill all of us and now their weapons have been degraded. So why would it make it more of a threat? This is what I mean. There's no logic in these answers at all. None. It's all emotion, emotion, emotion. Final question. Do you favor oppose us trying to overthrow the Iranian government? Favor. 44. Oppose. 56. Why would you oppose that? Why would you oppose the United States helping to overthrow the Iranian government? They're killers. Why would you oppose it? This is, you know, to me I'm going, who are these people? And I'm going to tell you who they are. Unfortunately, we live in a world now where people can create their own existence. In a sense, they live in a bubble. They don't go out of the bubble. So in Hollywood, they're all lefties. Maybe in Idaho, they're all Righties. They're on the social media. They don't go and get another opinion. They just hear their own stuff reinforced. That's what cable news does. Every single one of them. They live in a bubble. All right? Fact finding. Now, a book reading is way down. They go into social media where there are no editors, nothing is checked. I get letters every single day. Mad, crazy stuff. Oh, I heard this, I heard that. A little skepticism, please. That's not hard to get information. You just Google whatever the subject is, and most of that information is okay, all right? But bubble people are taking over the world, not just the United States. So the truth is that since 1979, as I write in Confronting Evil, remember, I got the Ayatollah on the COVID of that book with Putin and Hitler and Mao, and there's a reason he's there, okay? Because since 1979, Iran has been in business to kill Jews and Americans and disrupt the world. That's a long, long time. And the worst damage they did was an Iraq War where 36,000American casualties took place. 36,000, including 4500 dead. All right? And then in Afghanistan, it was 23,000 U.S. casualties, 2500 dead. And many of those casualties were roadside bombs. And those bombs were built by Iran. All right, are we getting the picture here? So Iran has killed Americans. And then we had, of course, the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, totally financed and armed by Iran. 1200 people killed. Estimated 46Americans in that. 1200 people dead. And then 12Americans taken hostage. And this is all Iran. So the poll goes. You don't want the government overthrown there. What? I'm just pointing this out because it makes absolutely no sense at all. If you want to justify military action against Iran, all you do is point to what I just told you. All right? It is a terror state, and now it's being downgraded, okay? By the administration, did nothing. I had my staff research it. The Biden administration, according to a number of sources, we did the math, unfroze $16 billion in assets and gave it to Iran. $16 billion. Okay. Where'd that money go? Nuclear program, ballistic missile program, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, terror groups. That's where it went. This is Biden. Biden do anything. No. Treaty after treaty after treaty. Iranians broke every single accord. And this goes back to 2009 with Barack Obama. You remember, John Kerry was the big point man. You know, every single deal, they broke everyone. So it got to the point where President Trump had a bomb, their nuclear facilities last June. I mean, this is historical facts. I'm giving you facts. I'm not saying we'll see. I'm not doing this mumbo jumbo, giving you the facts. These people are horrendous, and thank God, 50 of them at least, are dead. All right? Now, the administration obviously has to justify its cause to the American people, which is correct. I mean, they answered us. And we need to know why this is happening. Here's what Secretary of State Rubio said yesterday. Go.
- [08:15]
B
The purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind, meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and it can inflict so much damage that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do is put themselves in a place of immunity, where the damage they could inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program.
- [08:50]
A
All right? What the Secretary say will not say is that the timing of this synced up with the protests in Iran that we saw the last few weeks. Estimated 30,000 dead. I can't vouch for that number. Very hard to get an accurate number. There's no reporters in Iran, but they killed a lot of protesters. They. The mullahs. Okay? That's why Trump is saying, hey, we might have an opportunity here. If we downgrade their weapons, which is obviously what's happening now, maybe the Persians will rise up and throw them out as they did with the Shah in 1979. If you really want to know about this, you read Confronting Evil, okay? But most Americans don't want to know about it. They're too lazy to know about it. And I'm sorry to be supercilious here, but it's true. You hand them a map and say, where is Iran? I don't know. Okay? They don't know and they don't care. And there are going to be painful things. I mean, you wake up this morning, stock market's down 1200 points. I hope you didn't panic, okay? That's all emotion, emotion, emotion. Oil will go up. You'll pay a little bit more at the pump. But this is temporary. You know, the government setting us up, the Trump administration for a long slogan. I'm not so sure about that. All right, Iran is pretty much out of gas now. Their weaponry is pretty much done. They can't deliver it. Six Americans killed, but that's not a lot of KIA in a big campaign like this. And I'm watching very closely. I don't see a lot of counter attacks going on. All right, so let's sum it up. The military action by the USA and Israel would not be taking place if the protests had not happened. I think that is absolutely true. President Trump didn't want the military action. I explained this to you earlier. I spoke with him on the phone for a good while three weeks ago today, and he said, I want to make a deal. And I was a little skeptical about that. And I pointed out to him that Iran broke every deal with the Biden administration. Every single one they broke. All right, But Trump wanted to make a deal, couldn't. They wouldn't agree. So time was right. And that's the memo. International reaction about what you would expect. The German chancellor, Frederick merce, is in D.C. at lunch with President Trump today. And Germany is doing what Germany always does. He's just waffling around. They're not going to help. They don't oppose, but they don't, you know, they're not going to get involved. And then UK same thing. They're not going to oppose it, but they're not going to get involved. France says it's going to send a few drones over there or something, jets. They're going to send a few planes over, but it's Europe. Okay. So they're not really doing much. Russia, of course, opposed. Putin said this is a premeditated and unprovoked act of armed aggression. He would know. Who would know? China's sitting it out, because China, very realistic. They know they can't do anything. And Trump will make up the oil flow to China. That will happen. So they're, you know, they, we don't like it. But Canada, which initially jumped on the USA bandwagon, says it supports, but it's not involved with any helping or anything like that. So we're on it alone. We're pretty much in it alone. In Ukraine, the Europeans have done armed Ukraine. Yes, I, I think we need to point that out. But generally speaking, it's very weak. Trump is right. It's a very, very weak continent. Stock market, as I mentioned. I thought this would happen yesterday, but up and down, in and out, don't do anything. Just ride it out. I know it's hard, but you're going to lose a lot of money if you sell on the big dips over to Epstein. Now. The only reason I'm doing this story, I explained this yesterday, is that it's such a farce now. And it's so obvious why the Democratic Party is pushing this so hard. The Americans need to know what the con is. They need to know that this is a grift what is taking place here and it hurts the country. So as you know, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary were forced to testify from the House Oversight Committee last week. And here's what I said about it last night on News Nation. Hillary Clinton never should have been called. And that makes a far set of our federal government to call the woman. Whether you like or not, she was Secretary of State, first lady put her in a position to try to embarrass her over nothing. I'm appalled that that happened. But to call in people to try to embarrass them. And it's fairly clear that President Trump did not have anything to do with Epstein after their falling out. It even Bill Clinton said that in his sworn statements. And why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? This is a pure smear Trump action and it harms the country. So on Sunday, there was a column in the New York Post. I want to quote it, a little bit of it for you. It was written by Isaac Shore. And he said opportunists of all political stripes are using any and every tool at their disposal to make hay out of them with no regard for the victims and their misdirection or the truth. Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna become media darlings for their work on the Transparency act. But their conduct has actually been unbefitting decent men, much less congressmen. The pair claimed to have discovered six men likely incriminated in Epstein's nefarious activities and in unredacted files. And Connor went so far as to name them on the House floor. Quickly turned out that Ford no connection at all to Epstein, unquote. So this is a witch hunt. This is, this is the French Revolution. This is the guillotine. This is destroying people without evidence. One thing you should know is that President Obama signed an executive order saying that if information would be harmful to the public or individuals, it could be classified by the president and the heads of the departments. Now, that executive order is still in play despite this transparency act. And that's why these, some of the documents in the so called Epstein files weren't put forward, because Attorney General Bondi. All right, classified them at the direction, I'm sure, of President Trump. Joining us now from Rochester, New York is Isaac Shore. He's a senior editor at Media. So has a tide turning against this witch hunt, this Epstein thing, do you think?
- [16:45]
C
I mean, I would like to think so, Bill, but somehow I doubt it. I mean, as long as it is viewed as a weapon against Donald Trump specifically, you're going to see it remain in the news. Very much so. And I mean, look no further. You just referenced it last week. There was this whole controversy over these missing documents in the Epstein files. And it does appear that the Trump administration either deleted or never published them at all. You can, as you said, there might be some legal reason for that. You might question the strategic aim of that because what happened is it blew up and you have all these media outlets so excitedly parroting this allegation against the president and saying it's credible when it was really anything but. So I have my doubts that it's going to calm down anytime soon, even though it should.
- [17:43]
A
Well, it's pretty shameful that the media is calling for unredacted files that are fantasy. For the pages that you were referring to is some woman who says that she was assaulted by Trump and Epstein. She doesn't know what state she was assaulted in. She doesn't know how she got to that state because she lives in the south, said, well, I either got there by plane or car. You don't know how you got there. And then the woman herself was arrested on a variety of criminal charges. Right. And you want to put out her statement, her accusations, that's defamation per se and insane, is it not?
- [18:31]
C
I mean, it absolutely is. I mean, and there's more where that came from. I mean, there's not even like, as far as we know, Trump and Epstein hadn't even begun their friendship by this time, where this woman is claiming that, you know, Epstein delivered her to Trump to be assaulted. Have no proof that they were even friends at that time. We have no proof that Epstein ever was on Hilton Head island where she said she begun her relationship with Epstein, I believe in the 1980s. So there's so much to pick apart about that. But what's amazing is all these outlets have taken the fact that there were these missing files and, and they started calling the accusation credible without including any of this information.
- [19:18]
A
And they never explained the classified nature of almost every government agency that has stuff that is unverified they're not going to release to the public. And that's the moral thing to do. You don't destroy people, all right, with unfounded allegations. I mean, that's what I fear in this country, and I've seen this now over a 10 year period is due process doesn't matter anymore. The press has destroyed due process in America. You're not innocent until proven guilty. You're guilty if the press wants to put you in a headline.
- [19:55]
C
I mean, that's absolutely true. And I mean, Trump has been one of the main targets of theirs. But I mean, there's been others. You know, there have been anti Israel obsessives who have used, you know, Epstein's relationship with Ehud Barak, who was formerly the Prime Minister of Israel, actually a political rival of Benjamin Netanyahu. But, you know, they've been insisting, because they were friends that Epstein was actually a Mossad agent. You already talked about Massey and Kana, who are just using the speech and debate clause on the House floor to smear people. But they're meeting darlings is they oppose Trump. The irony is, I mean, there's just so many examples.
- [20:40]
A
The Left condemns Joseph McCarthy in the 50s heard labeling everybody a communist without the evidence, but, oh, that was horrible. But now we can do it. Last question. When you see a poll at CNN just put out and most of the people in the polls say, no, we don't want the Iranian government overthrown, there's only one explanation in my mind, and that's stupidity for that kind of an opinion. Is there. Am I missing something?
- [21:07]
C
You know, I, I agree. I think there are principled reasons to oppose the administration's actions. I personally support them. But I can understand, you know, principle reasons. We're concerned about the domino effect. We don't know. But to say that you don't want this regime to fall, I mean, I think, you know, stupidity is one way to describe it. I mean, I also think there, there are a lot of people, unfortunately, in this country who share kind of this anti American instinct and who are kind of prone to make heroes out of some of the worst regimes on earth, some of the worst people on earth because they oppose America. I mean, I think we've seen plenty of that over the last few years, ever since October 7th. There's people out in the streets on Ivy League campuses. Their disdain for Israel is oftentimes just a laundered anti Americanism.
- [22:05]
A
I think There's a strain of anti Semitism in that poll, but not a lot. I just think it's ignorance. So, Isaac, thanks very much. We appreciate the good work you're doing and I hope we can talk again soon. Thanks again. All right, Supreme Court, two rulings that were pretty good in my opinion. They were unsigned, which means that the majority of the court said, look, we're not going to take the case on, but we are going to stop things that are in motion. The first one was the trans stuff. So in California there is a law that public schools don't have to alert parents if they're children, change their names or pronouns or appearance or the parents would see the appearance. But if they're identifying as a girl and they're a boy, the California authorities don't have to inform the parents. Supreme Court said no, okay, you can't have that law. That law is illegal six to three. And how we know that even though it was unsigned, is that the three liberals, Sotomayor Kagan and Kenji Brown. Okay. Said no, we don't like that. Now those three women will vote liberal on everything. So those who criticize the Supreme Court have a point. It is a politicized court and you do have some right wing judges that pretty much everything, they're going to go conservative. So just keep that in mind. The second ruling from the Supreme Court was an outrageous situation. Staten island is the only Republican stronghold in the New York City area and they wanted to redistrict the congressional seat there, the 11th district, and make it more minority. They wanted to change the boundaries so more minorities could vote. Minorities in New York City vote Democrat. Okay. And that's what the New York legislature and judges were going to do. Well, Congresswoman Nicole Maliatakis brought it to the federal courts. The Supreme Court said, no, you can't disrupt the district because you want it to be Democrat. Now that's happening all over the country. Not just liberal Democrats are doing it. Some conservatives are trying to do it too, to shut out all congressional opposition. Wrong. It's not what the founding fathers had in mind. But anyway, two good ruling. And the three liberal judges said, no, no, no, we were allowed. Okay, you know, I'm sorry, I don't take them seriously. I don't have any respect for them. I don't respect people who are ideologues. I don't. I want free thinking, fair minded people. All right, here's a very interesting story. So Harris Harvard poll, and it was about the midterms. It's tied the generic vote is tied 50 50. Now, just last month, Democrats led in that poll 54 to 46. This is a big swing in a few weeks for the midterms. I told you this after the State of the Union. I said President Trump's speech is going to swing independence over to the Republican side. Now, that might not last. Certainly, if Iran goes south, the president's going to have some problems. This is a big gamble on his part. Big. Now, if it turns out like Venezuela, he's going to be a hero, but, boy, he's rolling the dice. But this poll, and there was one other interesting part of the poll. Do you approve or disprove of the job Donald Trump's doing as president? Approved, 46. Disapprove 49. That's a tie. The 3 margin of error, 3% margin of error. That's all from the State of the Union. And you heard it here first. Back with a final thought about President Trump finally going to the Correspondent's Dinner. Okay, Final thought of the day as you meet. Now, I invited Donald Trump, when he was a civilian, to a dinner in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Washington Correspondents association, which is a charity, and that was in 2011. I sat right next to him, and Barack Obama was there. President Obama. Okay, I'll get to him in a moment. So I remember walking in with Trump, and Trump was a celebrity then, but nothing like now, of course, but he had criticized Obama, okay, publicly. And of course, the president did not like that very much. Roll tape.
- [27:14]
D
Donald Trump is here tonight. Now, I know that he's taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac now?
- [27:55]
A
Trump did not like that. Okay? I can tell you I'm sitting right next to him. But he's going to the White House Correspondent's Dinner this year. Okay? He has boycotted them in his first term and last year, but he's going. There is not going to be a obnoxious comedian to come in down. The headliner is mentalist Oz Perlman. No idea. No idea who that is. Anyway, I'm going to go to independently of President Trump. Okay? I'm going to go because it's going to be an interesting dynamic there because Trump will give a speech, and so I'll, I'll be there April 25, I believe it is. Yeah. So. And then I'll report back to you that Monday of exactly what happened. Isn't that interesting, though, huh? I'm not sure whether this is a good thing for President Trump. He obviously is expanding his, you know, he's given interviews to hostile people. He's taken their phone calls. Cnn, which hates him, got through to him yesterday on Iran. I have to talk to him. I haven't talked to him in three weeks. The last conversation I had was about trying to get a deal with Iran. It was three weeks ago today. So I got to talk to him about what his vision is for the media and why he's doing his correspondence thing in April. But that will be I'm a journalist. I have to go where the action is, and I am going to go in that lion's den. I don't expect anybody to be on tour with me. They better not, I'll tell you right now. But with him, with his speech, I mean, a little drama. Okay. Thank you very much for watching and listening to this edition of the no Spin News. I'm Bill O'Reilly. We'll see you again tomorrow.