← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to the no Spin news Weekend Edition.
- [00:07]
B
Epstein, I'm sorry, I'm sorry to report, but there is some breaking news here, so I have to. So today, Epstein's henchwoman Elaine Maxwell, serving 20 years in federal prison, went to the House to testify. Oversight Committee took the Fifth, said, look, if you give me clemency, I'll tell you everything. Hey, lady, if it were up to me, you'd never get out of prison, ever. Okay? I don't care whether you take the Fifth or not. And the Clintons, end of this month, Bill Clinton is supposed to testify in front of the oversight committee on February 27th. Hillary Clinton, February 26th. So joining us now is a member of that committee, so we can find out what the inside stuff is. Pete Sessions is a Republican congressman from Texas. So you knew that Maxwell was going to take the Fifth right before she showed up today. We did.
- [01:13]
C
We figured that out. We've been through this charade now for several months.
- [01:18]
B
So why bother calling her in?
- [01:20]
C
Well, because we had to give the chance. We've called a lot of former officials who, Republicans who provided the best of information that they could and had. We have been after both President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton for quite some time. They're the ones that really made this the issue. We typically do these without the entire committee there. They've chosen to do this. We've got lots of questions they would tend to be aware of or we'll find out what they are going to say. Remembering that they're going to take an oath and that oath means.
- [02:02]
B
Yeah, but they may, they may not recall. That's Hillary's big line. I really recall. But interestingly enough, Maxwell's lawyer today said publicly, Presidents Trump and Clinton had nothing to do with anything untoward. Right.
- [02:21]
C
Think that's correct. But there are things that the committee may have on both President and Mrs. Clinton where when they don't remember, they may be reminded.
- [02:33]
B
Ah, that's always a good thing, Congressman.
- [02:36]
C
Isn'T that, you know, there's no sane facts or a stubborn thing, but there are things which have been, have been known and including conversations and trying to help perhaps him doing things with, with their, their government there. So there, there are some things that they may all of a sudden recognize. Yeah, that's, that's my handwriting.
- [03:03]
B
All right. What do you. American public's tired of this story. If they like President Trump, if they don't like President Trump, they want to put a noose around Mr. Trump's neck and tie him some way into Epstein. But what do you Want. What are you trying to demystify about Bill Clinton himself? He says he wasn't on that stupid island. He says he wasn't involved with any kind of illegality. What do you want to try to demonstrate with the former president?
- [03:39]
C
Well, it seemingly other people did understand what were going on behind closed doors. They seemingly did understand that perhaps people tried to get Jeffrey Epstein a job or to be a part of the government, not to pay taxes when they were there to gain favor with them. Who paid the money? Who is providing cover for these things? These are all things that would tend to jar one's memory if confronted with ideas, perhaps facts, the case. So I think it's always worthy to get it straight from them rather than just releasing data and information that by and large has not been released yet.
- [04:27]
B
Do you think there'll be some new headlines here?
- [04:29]
C
I think that there will be some questions.
- [04:32]
B
Okay. Okay. So President Clinton, do you believe, and you don't have to be specific, that wouldn't be, you know, because you guys are doing your research, you're going to have the hearing and all that, do you believe he's in legal jeopardy?
- [04:51]
C
Well, there's, there's always something that's said and that is the COVID up is worse than the crime. So with, and of course, as you suggested, at least Mrs. Clinton is probably going to say, I don't remember, I don't know, I forgot very similar what we have heard over the last few days from a number of witnesses. And of course we know who that is. Jack Smith did, did that when he was deeply involved and yet he accuses others of not having memory. So, you know, you just. My point might be to the Clintons, they didn't have to come this way and it's ended up this way.
- [05:36]
B
Okay, but with Bill and Hillary, it's two different things. Or you tell me if I'm wrong. Bill Clinton was an active participant in social things with Jeffrey Epstein. Everybody knows that. Pictures are out there, he's in some kind of pool, whatever. With Hillary Clinton, from my investigation, it has to do with her charitable foundation, is that correct?
- [05:58]
C
Well, there's a good bit and that goes back to the. Well, if you don't remember. Let me see if I can help your memory out. Documents.
- [06:07]
B
Okay, so she was involved with Epstein, former Secretary of State, in a way that might be considered shady when you're trying to raise money for your charitable foundation. That's what our investigation shows. I mean, we don't have what you have, but that's the direction that I believe is in play. Am I right or wrong on that?
- [06:34]
C
I would say that would certainly be the major part, part of this paperwork.
- [06:40]
B
That does exist because you know how much I want to be right, Congressman. I mean, you know, anyway, look, we appreciate you telling the American people exactly what's going on because they can't get that in a corporate meeting. They can't get it. The information that you just gave me and you answered every question you didn't dodge, you didn't do this. Right. They can't get it because the corporate media will not cover it unless it's Trump last word.
- [07:13]
C
Well, I would say to you that once again, the things which are presented before the committee at the end of the month will be probably pretty good theater. And it's my hope that there's a lot of reality that people need to answer questions or will be reminded.
- [07:30]
B
All right. I hope you come back. Congressman. We really appreciate your time today.
- [07:34]
C
I'd like to well enough to get invited back. And Bill, thank you. I hope you recover.
- [07:38]
B
Thanks very much, sir.
- [07:40]
A
You're listening to the Nose Weekend edition.
- [07:44]
B
Iran. So I talked with President Trump about this and I'm not name dropping. I mean, I mean I got to report what's going on. The president would rather make a deal than bomb Iran. Why doesn't want to kill Persian civilians. And that would happen and I think that's noble. So if we go in with air power off our carriers and start to bomb Revolution Guard headquarters, whatever it may be, you know, civilians are going to die and that's going to be all over the world. So he wants to make a deal with Iran, but I don't think Iran wants to make the deal. My opinion, I don't think they're just slow walking it. And I don't see anything but the last minute that could change. When will the last minute happen? After the Olympics? I don't believe it's going to be any, you know, we're giving you 24 hours kind of deadline till the Olympics are over. I could be wrong about that. Joining us now is an expert on what's happening in the Middle east and Iran, E.J. kimball, foreign policy analyst with the US Israel Education Association. So one of the reasons that you're here, Mr. Kimball, in addition, you can be a smart guy, is because it's not only the USA that has to sign off on what's going to happen in Iran, but Israel does and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states do. Correct?
- [09:17]
D
That's, that's true. And Bill, thanks for having me on. You know, there are a lot of players that have a role to play in this decision. And, you know, I think your conversation with President Trump makes a lot of sense. And I agree. President Trump does not want to carry out airstrikes because he knows that it's going to lead to civilian deaths. That would be unfortunate. He wants to make a deal, but he has shown even in Venezuela, he wanted to make a deal with Maduro. Maduro would not play ball. And I think what we're seeing right now with the Iranians, they're not looking to make a deal right now. They're trying to negotiate over the terms of negotiating. And President Trump's not going to sit around and let that happen. It's just not, you know, he's not going to let them play that game.
- [10:03]
B
But he's got the Olympics to worry about. We got two more weeks of that.
- [10:08]
D
Well, that's true. But I will say, and this is where President Trump is so unique, because if this was President Biden, President Obama, even President Bush, I don't think we would even be talking about this. But President Trump is so unpredictable that could he carry out this strike while the Olympics are going on? It's a question that we have to ask. And that's been his M.O. all along. You know, expect the unexpected point.
- [10:33]
B
It's a good point. The unpredictability of it, certainly. But that is an inhibitor, because you've got this big worldwide thing and then you go in and regime change. But regime change, I think has to happen in Iran, but it has to be done by the Persian people themselves. And if you weaken the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard protectors, it's more likely to happen. But right now, the focus is on Iran obeying the nuclear prohibition. And I don't see a lot of regime change talk, do you?
- [11:14]
D
I'm not saying a lot of that talk, but President Trump has talked about regime change. He's used the terms regime change. He said to the people, you know, help is on the way. And that's, that's a big thing, that he put his credibility on the line there for the people. But I agree with you. He's not looking to do a regime change and own it. I mean, look, he campaigned in 2016 about nation building and criticizing the Bush administration. He's not going to do that. What we saw in what we're seeing in Venezuela is this attempt to get rid of the top and see if the next level can work with you. Now, I don't know if there's levels within the IRGC that would be willing to work with the Trump administration and get rid of the nuclear program, the ballistic missile program, stop funding the terror proxies, stop repressing the people. I think that's way too much to ask for out of the irgc.
- [12:13]
B
Yeah, maybe a new leadership, a secular leadership goes in. But we own Venezuela now. So we're calling every shot in that country. They're not calling any. I know that to be true. Any prediction on what's going to happen in Iran?
- [12:29]
D
I think that we will carry out strikes. I think part of the reason why this may take a few more weeks is that a first strike by the United States will be a massive strike that not only takes out the threats inside of Iran, but also the threats in the region that could attack U.S. forces and our allies. And that's the Houthis, that's the militias in Iraq. We're talking about. Anything remaining in Syria, anything remaining with Hezbollah, I think it will be massive and coordinated with, with other countries. President Trump wants to win. He doesn't want a long war. He wants to go in and have a massive, massive, overwhelming response.
- [13:11]
B
All right, we have you on tape, EJ and thank you for appearing today.
- [13:17]
A
This is the no Spin News WEEKEND edition.
- [13:22]
B
All right, now to foreign money inciting violence inside the usa. We're all over this story and I haven't seen a lot of reporting on it. So yesterday there was a hearing in front of the House Ways and Means Committee about how foreign money coming into radical left groups being used to pay protesters or agitators, better word, to go to places like Minneapolis and cause trouble. LA Portland, Oregon so the money comes from a guy named Neville Roy Singham. This is the big guy, lives in China, Shanghai, is a communist and he is raising hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the US Government. And joining us now from Washington, from yeah. Washington, is Congressman Kevin Hearn from Oklahoma, who was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. What did you learn yesterday in this hearing?
- [14:21]
E
Well, thanks. Thanks, Bill, for having me. You know, it's the old saying, follow the money. And we've talked about this for years. We've had the opportunity under Biden administration and now the Trump administration to refer some 11 cases to the IRS for investigation. This hearing validated this through our witnesses. And even the Democrat witness was caught in a lie about his nonprofit, his foundation being funded by a nonprofit that was funded by a billionaire from Switzerland. So foreign money coming in, motivating these folks to go out and do what they're doing protesting against the ice, trying to break up, you know, what we're trying to do as far as sending people back. As you just alluded to, the Democrats have consistently wanted illegals to be able to stay here. When you look at the vote today, we're having on the SAVE act to say you need to be a legal citizen, you need to show your voter I.D. whenever you go, your I.D. to go vote. We're trying to push back on this narrative that, you know, illegals are going to run this country. And the 501C3s that are out there that have been put forth by these foreign billionaires to fund these, these riots, to fund these protests has got to stop. And that's what we're doing. We're investigating every one of them.
- [15:34]
B
Okay? But it's not just Democrats. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant could have started revoking 501 in October and he didn't do it and he won't talk about it. Every time you ask him, he runs away. Now, he made some kind of thing last week where he's going to try to get a big investigative unit, but that's six months ago and he doesn't seem to be to bullish on, on this thing. President Trump himself asked me for information, I don't know whether you know this or not, which I handed over to him as an American citizen, not as a journalist. But he asked me, he says, give me the names of the 501Cs that are taking Singham's money and the billionaire from Switzerland you mentioned and others. There are others all over the country world doing this, many names of them and we'll revoke their 501Cs, which I did. But it doesn't seem to me to be a compelling issue in Congress right now. And most of it's the Democrats fault, but not all.
- [16:39]
E
No, you're exactly right. That's why we're having these hearings. We're going to have more to point out the issues. You probably saw the exchange with the Democrat witness yesterday where he was caught in a lie about again, the funding of his organization. We had great witnesses on the panel that answered all the questions. The Democrats didn't want to talk about anything as far as fraudulent funding with the 501C3, all they wanted to talk about are tariffs and President Trump's an evil person. Republicans don't care.
- [17:09]
D
Right.
- [17:10]
E
We.
- [17:10]
B
Right.
- [17:11]
E
We'll dig through this and we'll find the information to give Secretary Besson to do do his job over there.
- [17:16]
B
Now as a member of Congress, do you really believe that most of your Democratic peers in the House want to give amnesty to bad foreign nationals? Do you believe they want to do that?
- [17:33]
E
No, but they detract from the actual issue because I think when you get from, away from the camera for a political piece, when they look at the policies, they will tell you that this is bad politics. In fact, after, after the hearing, many of the Democrats said, we've got to work on fixing this. This is an atrocity for America.
- [17:52]
D
This is.
- [17:52]
E
They wouldn't say that at the hearing on the camera, but behind the scenes they know this is devastating for, you know, for the freedoms of Americans, all Americans, because it can cut both ways. And that's something that we need to protect. It's our job in Congress. And that's again, what we're having these hearings, you know, and, and, and bill, not just the not for profits, the for profits. Also we've got sovereign wealth funds that are funding litigation against companies and not paying any taxes on it. Taking the money back to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. And I've got a bill out there, a third party litigation funding act that goes after these, these particular situations to expose them for what they're doing, which is quite frankly to our financial system, is just as devastating. It's driving up insurance costs for companies and for individuals across America. And we're not trying to stop any of the lawsuits are going on, but we want transparency. We want to make sure that these foreign actors are paying their appropriate taxes. Most are not paying any taxes at all on these big multimillion dollar lawsuits. So there's a whole host of things we need to be looking at when it comes to foreign actors. And both of these are really devastating to the American economy and to the American people.
- [19:03]
B
Real briefly, because I want to get to the voting thing. When you say they're not paying any taxes on litigation, most people don't understand what you mean.
- [19:13]
E
Yeah. So they create, they have a sovereign wealth fund. They come in, they call it a capital asset to pre fund a lawsuit. Meaning like, let's just take a sovereign wealth fund from, you know, the Middle East. They'll come in and set up a fund and call it a capital investment and then whenever it settles, they'll call it a capital gains. Well, capital gains are not paid by foreign individuals that are not U.S. citizens.
- [19:35]
B
So they make money here in our capitalistic system. They don't pay taxes. They ship the money back to whatever country they're from.
- [19:43]
E
Correct. And even the Local sovereign wealth funds or the wealth funds in the United States have set these up for litigation. They get them classified as capital gains as opposed to ordinary income. And so we're going after.
- [19:54]
B
I got it. Okay. It's more of a grift than anything else. Now, I'll go back to your peers on the Democratic side of the aisle in the House. It's inexplicable. They wouldn't want to know who's voting, but they're opposing the SAVE Act. They don't want voter id. Do you believe most of these people on the Democratic side really believe that that's good for the country?
- [20:20]
E
Let's, let's go back to the 2020 census when President Trump tried to get a question in there, are you a US Citizen or not? That's where it starts. Who's in the household? Because that's the apportionment act that determines how many members of Congress you have in each state and where they are. And so that was, you know, contested by Democrats and then ultimately was set aside where we couldn't have their language in there. Now here we are, we're having, first of all, the SAVE act, which says you have to be a US Citizen to vote in our elections, which is the law already. It is the law. And then on top of that is to have an ID like we do in Oklahoma, to identify yourself when you go up to, to cast your vote. Certainly in federal elections, we have that responsibility. We have the opportunity to do that, and that's what we're going to be voting on today.
- [21:06]
B
Yeah. And Democrats oppose that. Why?
- [21:09]
E
Well, again, they're trying to protect the illegal immigrants in this country because they know that most of those are going to support the Democrats because the Democrats are supporting illegal immigration. And quite frankly, some of the people that are most put out by this or upset by this are the people who've done the legal immigrants immigration the right way. I just sent out a letter yesterday to my staff and others that for the last 25 years, we've legalized anywhere between 750,000 and a million people a year going through the system that we've always had. And so it's not that we're against immigration. We're against illegal immigration.
- [21:46]
B
Yeah, sure. I mean, the pathway and, but you guys should pass a new updated immigration law. That's for sure. You're relying on 1952. Last question.
- [21:56]
E
But it's still, Bill, it's still, it's still allowing almost a million people a year to come through the process.
- [22:00]
B
Okay, but it needs to be, it needs to be more sharply defined as far as enforcement and penalties. That's what it needs right now. It's all over the place and the states are obviously ignoring it in many, many instances. Last question. Do you believe that these organizations inside the United States, both nonprofit and profit, you believe the Justice Department is going to start to crack down on these people who are absolutely paying agitators to break down our system? Is that going to happen?
- [22:40]
E
Yeah, to my knowledge, the first time since I've been here for almost eight years that we've had a hearing on just this in ways of means to talk about the taxation policy because this is a non issue if the 501C3s are stripped of their non tax status. And so we're going that to that direction. There's been obviously very politicized hearings on judiciary and oversight on these. But we're going after from a tax standpoint, which I think is really brings in the, the Treasury Department also from the DOJ standpoint, if treasury is involved, we have a dual attack on these folks doing this that for the first time certainly since in my adult life, we're going to, we're doing things that haven't been done before. So I think we're going to be successful. We have a close working relationship with Secretary Bussent and the President. So we're going to make sure we move forward.
- [23:29]
B
All right. If you see the secretary, tell him to come on this program because he's been disrespectful to us and that's not good. Anyway, Congressman, we hope you will come back as well when anything significant happens. We really appreciate your time. Thank you.
- [23:44]
A
Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no spin news, visit billoreilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoreilly.com sign up and start watching today.