No Spin News - Weekend Edition - January 17, 2026

Summary

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis

Episode: No Spin News - Weekend Edition - January 17, 2026
Host: Bill O'Reilly
Date: January 17, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This weekend edition of No Spin News dives into pressing political and legal controversies: the Clintons’ subpoena surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the Justice Department’s investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, American foreign policy traditions versus Trump-era actions, and the scope of executive power and state rebellion under the Trump administration. Bill O'Reilly hosts a series of expert guests—lawyer Bob Driscoll, financial analyst Anthony Esposito, historian Randall Woods, and media columnist Colby Hall—for robust debate and sharp analysis “with no spin.”

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Clintons Subpoenaed by House Oversight Committee

Guest: Bob Driscoll, Attorney

• Background: Bill and Hillary Clinton are subpoenaed for private depositions regarding Bill Clinton’s 26 flights on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane, some in connection with the Clinton Foundation.
  • O'Reilly: “They’re not going to show up. I’ll be stunned if they show up.” [00:21]
• Legal Framework:
  • Precedent set by Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, both of whom defied Congressional subpoenas and were imprisoned.
  • Driscoll warns, “I think it could happen,” regarding the possibility of a former (or sitting) President facing prison for defying Congress [02:10].
• Strategic Advice:
  • Better to appear and object to specific questions, or challenge the subpoena in court.
  • Ignoring the subpoena puts them at serious legal risk; Congress may vote to hold them in contempt and refer to the Department of Justice.
  • New procedural developments: referrals can now go directly to the DOJ without a full House contempt vote [04:19].
• Memorable Exchange:
  • Driscoll: “If our guy had to go to jail, so do you.” [05:28]
  • O'Reilly: “If you are on Epstein’s plane 26 times under the banner of the Clinton foundation, you got to ask the questions about that.” [05:30]
• Final consensus: Not showing up is the worst possible move for the Clintons. [06:16]

---

2. Justice Department Investigating Fed Chair Jerome Powell

Guest: Anthony Esposito, Financial Analyst

• Issue: DOJ is investigating Jerome Powell over a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters; speculation that it’s politically motivated, especially as Trump has shown animosity toward Powell.
  • O’Reilly: “Nobody cares about this, but I do... 2.5 billion renovation... How is that possible? It’s my money!” [06:31]
• Powell’s Tenure:
  • Esposito: “Jerome Powell has positioned himself in a really bad way with the president because... he’s attacked America... and he’s attacked President Trump... through his seat at the Fed and monetary policy.” [07:49]
  • Describes Powell’s rate increases under Trump during a strong economy, sharp rate cuts under Biden, and then increases during inflation—argues this benefited Democrats and hurt Trump politically [08:13].
• Motives for Investigation:
  • Trump likely perceives Powell as part of the “deep state,” believes Powell’s actions were politically manipulative [09:39].
  • O’Reilly: “Trump believes... Powell is a deep state guy... manipulating the US economy to get Democrats elected...” [09:39]
  • Esposito: “He manipulates the rates to benefit the Democrats.” [09:56]
• Perspective on DOJ Actions:
  • Esposito says there is “a bit of retribution” in play, but “enough legitimacy to make it not some kind of contrived situation.” [11:32]
  • “I don’t think President Trump had anything to do with the subpoena, but I’m sure he’s not losing sleep over it.” [11:49]

---

3. Historical Foreign Policy: John Quincy Adams vs. Trump

Guest: Dr. Randall Woods, Historian

• Discussion Prompt: How would John Quincy Adams view Trump’s efforts to reshape the hemisphere to be more pro-American?
  • Woods: “He would approve efforts to recreate the Americas to suit our interest. I’m not sure he would have gone about it in exactly the same way.” [13:03]
• Comparison of Doctrines:
  • O’Reilly claims the “Don Roe Doctrine” is not much different from the Monroe Doctrine [13:37], but Woods contrasts the expansionist/isolationist tension in practice.
  • Woods reviews US history of hemispheric intervention, from Spanish-American War, Roosevelt’s "big stick," to Cold War anti-communism [14:06–14:36].
• Debate on Narcotics and Security Threats:
  • O’Reilly names narcotics as a security threat to justify intervention: “Let me challenge you on narcotics flooding into this country, killing millions... That’s a national security threat, is it not?” [14:52]
  • Woods: “Nobody’s forcing Americans to take drugs.” [15:09]
  • O’Reilly: “That doesn’t negate the threat... these cartels... hurt our country. So president supposed to just do nothing?” [15:12]
  • Woods: “I’m not sure that’s a good reason... Maduro was a bad actor...” [15:50]
• On Corruption and US Actions:
  • O’Reilly references Maduro’s seizure of US assets and US seizures in response [16:03], defending aggressive policy: “I’m saying the overarch of challenging anti American countries... is a legitimate way to use our power.” [17:13]
  • Woods: “Absolutely, I agree with you. I just think there’s a better way to do it.” [17:25]
• Covert Action:
  • Woods: “If you look at the history of regime changes during the Cold War, they used the CIA.” [17:33]
  • O’Reilly: “Well, that’s what they use now. The CIA ran that entire Venezuelan operation.” [17:40]

---

4. Executive Power, State Rebellion, and Media Critique

Guest: Colby Hall, Mediaite Columnist

• Mediaite’s Take:
  • O’Reilly reads from Hall’s “Enough is Enough” column, criticizing Trump’s “scale, speed and brazenness” in using executive power to bypass checks and balances [19:11].
• Debate on Executive Authority:
  • Hall: “Under an executive branch that literally acts with impunity, with zero checks and balances... might makes right... That’s not really democratic.” [20:45]
  • O’Reilly: “I don’t have that perception... The courts ruled that the president could not send National Guard to L.A... He took them out. He’s been constrained.” [21:36]
  • Hall: “You just basically said Trump doesn’t want to take Maduro to Congress because he knows he won’t get what he wants. I’m sorry, you don’t get to pick and choose what the Constitution says.” [25:54]
  • O’Reilly: “If you have national security concerns behind you, yes, you do.” [26:10]
  • Hall counters that “national security” is a subjective justification; “checks and balances” can’t be abandoned for expedience [26:15–26:29].
• Law, State Rebellion, and ICE:
  • O’Reilly: “There are 10 states in open rebellion to the United States government because they fail to obey the law... When you say, ‘I’m not going to obey the law...’ you’re in rebellion, are you not?” [25:19]
  • Hall: “Rebellion is a narrative that oversteps considerably. I remember... states rights were a big talking point on the Right. Now... gone away.” [25:34]
• Ending Thoughts on Immigration and Public Opinion:
  • Hall: “Only 28% of the people are sort of agreeing with the narrative that the ICE agent was justified in shooting.” [27:32]
  • O’Reilly: “ICE has to tighten it up a little bit and has to... give more of an explanation.” [29:05]
• Closing Dynamic:
  • O’Reilly: “Trump is basically saying this... ‘I was elected to protect the American people and I’m going to do it. I am not going to submit to some theoretical process...’”
  • Hall (final word): “You’re being very generous... I don’t think a lot of people feel like mullahs in Iran pose a direct threat to their lives... But geopolitically, they are a huge threat... I also think... people want illegals extracted... but don’t want to see... agents invading homes without a search warrant.” [28:28–29:05]

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Subpoenas and Risk:
  • Driscoll: “Not showing up puts him in the worst position because his argument there is, ‘There’s not one relevant question I could be asked,’ and that’s clearly not true.” [05:55]
• On the Clinton Investigation:
  • O’Reilly: “If our guy had to go to jail, so do you.” [05:28]
• On Powell and the Fed:
  • Esposito: “He manipulates the rates to benefit the Democrats.” [09:56]
• On Drug Cartels as Security Threats:
  • O’Reilly: “Narcotics flooding into this country, killing millions… that’s a national security threat, is it not?” [14:52]
  • Woods: “Nobody’s forcing Americans to take drugs.” [15:09]
• On State Rebellion:
  • O’Reilly: “When you say, ‘I’m not going to obey the law that has been passed by Congress, not Trump. I’m not obeying it.’ You’re in rebellion, are you not?” [25:19]
• Executive Power and Checks:
  • Hall: “You could defend the extraction of Maduro... that really threatens and is very risky to our NATO alliance... under an executive branch that acts with impunity.” [20:45]
  • O’Reilly: “If you have national security concerns behind you, yes, you do.” [26:10]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Clintons and Oversight Subpoena: 00:07–06:21
• Justice Department & Jerome Powell: 06:31–12:10
• Historical Foreign Policy & John Quincy Adams: 12:14–18:19
• Executive Power, States’ Rights, ICE, and Media Critique: 19:11–29:05

---

Overall Tone & Takeaways

Bill O’Reilly steers a combative, fast-paced conversation, pressing each guest with challenging hypotheticals and pushing back against what he sees as partisan double standards. The guests bring legal expertise, financial analysis, historical perspective, and media critique, fostering debates that don’t shy away from grey areas or unpopular conclusions. This episode serves listeners keen on understanding not just the facts, but the competing frameworks shaping American governance in 2026.

Transcript

[Bill O'Reilly]

Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

Let's go to the Clintons, Bill and Hillary. They've been asked to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee tomorrow and Wednesday, the President tomorrow and former Secretary of State on Wednesday. They're not going to show up. I'll be stunned if they show up. So what happens then? The Oversight Committee, James Comer says, you know, we want your depositions closed or private about Epstein. Why? Because Bill Clinton took 26 trips aboard Epstein's plane. A lot of them in conjunction with the Clinton foundation, which Hillary Clinton is a chief officer of. That's why. That's legit, I think. Right. So they're supposed to show up, but they're not gonna show up. And then what happens? Joining us now from Washington is lawyer Bob Driscoll. He is a partner in Dickinson and Wright. He's very well experienced in these matters. So we have a frame of reference with Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. Both defied subpoenas to appear before Congress and both were sent to prison because of it, correct?

[Bob Driscoll]

Yes, they both blew off their subpoenas completely. There was a referral to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice prosecuted both of them and gained convictions in both cases, went up on appeal, and both convictions were upheld.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, so that was Merrick Garland and Joe Biden, the president, and they put them in the jail. And they, Navarro and Pannon both said, okay, I'm willing to do the time. Now, that's not going to happen with Bill and Hillary Clinton, is it?

[Bob Driscoll]

I wouldn't be so sure. I think it could happen.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Do you think a sitting president, a former president of the United States, is going to get sentenced to prison because he won't show up and testify?

[Bob Driscoll]

I think there's a chance. I think the precedent is there. The better approach for him to take would be to show up and object if they can object to specific questions as harassing, as irrelevant, as simply asking embarrassing questions for the sake of that. But the ability of Congress to issue subpoenas is pretty well established. There are limited circumstances where courts have held that Congress has gone too far. But I think that he's in better shape to protect himself by either showing up and objecting to the questions, having his lawyer object to the questions he thinks go too far, he doesn't want to answer, or by filing suit immediately before he's supposed to show up and trying to challenge the subpoena in a federal court in Washington.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So if you just blow off the.

[Bob Driscoll]

Subpoena puts him at risk of. Of being held in contempt because the committee can hold him in contempt, refer to the whole House to hold him in contempt, and then the House would vote to hold me contempt and make a referral to the Department of Justice.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Yeah. The House is so close, though, I might not, you know, he might not get. You might not lose. But even if they don't show up this week and are you thinking they're going to show up tomorrow and Wednesday?

[Bob Driscoll]

My guess would be that they will either show up or they will file suit in D.C. to try to challenge the subpoena and drag it out in litigation. I just think it's too big a risk to not show up at all. The case law is pretty clear that the courts do not like it if you blow off subpoena completely. If there's a dispute over what you say when you're there.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, I got it. But there's no tomorrow. We looked at the House oversight schedule. There's nothing on it. The subpoena still stands. So I understand, though, that they would have a second chance. They would get warned by Colmer and if they don't come next time or whatever, then they're going to get it. Will they give them a second chance if they don't show up this week?

[Bob Driscoll]

Typically, the way this would work and the chances he would get is the committee would schedule a vote to vote on contempt and presumably he could cure his contempt by saying he would show up before they took that vote. After that, the whole House could vote. The other thing that's happened this year, that's a new development in this area of law is Jim Jordan made a referral of a witness for his committee straight to the Department of Justice for obstruction when he didn't like the. He thought the witness was too obstreperous and wouldn't answer the questions. And he made a straight referral to the Department of Justice without going through contentiary. So I just think there's a lot of risk for the former president and the former first lady to not show up at all. They've got experienced counsel. I'm sure they're looking at all this and, but I mean, I wouldn't bank on him if they were a Democratic doj. Okay, great. They would probably be open to hearing that this is a harassing subpoena. It doesn't have to do with the merits and all that.

[Bill O'Reilly]

That's going to be very tough when you're on a plane.

[Bob Driscoll]

There is not. They're not going to want to hear that. No, I think that.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But. But I don't they're going to.

[Bob Driscoll]

But that's partisan war over the Bannon case.

[Bill O'Reilly]

And. But that's. Yeah.

[Bob Driscoll]

If our guy had to go to jail, so do you.

[Bill O'Reilly]

That's partisan. No, it'll, as you know, go beyond the, it'll go into the federal court system. And if you are on Epstein's plane 26 times under the banner of the Clinton foundation, you got to ask the questions about that. So the courts are going to go. It's a legitimate line of questioning. The this isn't something just to embarrass the Clintons. Last word.

[Bob Driscoll]

I think not showing up puts him in the worst position because his argument there is. There's not one relevant question I could be asked, and that's clearly not true. The better course for him is to show up and answer what is fairly asked and object if he thinks they're trying to make a spectacle of it or asking inappropriate questions just for the sake of exposing personal flaws he may have.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay.

[Bob Driscoll]

I think show not showing up is not a great idea for him, and I think he's at risk if he doesn't do it.

[Bill O'Reilly]

All right. Well, we're obviously on it. Thank you, counselor. Appreciate your time very much.

You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

All right, so the just department is investigating Jerome Powell, the Fed chair. Now, nobody cares about this, but I do. I'm one of the few that do. 72 years old and Trump hates this guy. And so a lot of people say it's another revenge play by the president. Jerome Powell being investigated, but a little bit more here. So Powell had to testify in front of Congress about a $2.5 billion, 2.5 billion renovation of Fed headquarters in Washington. Now, how do you spend 2.5 billion on a building renovation? How is that possible? I like to know. It's my money, so I'm not real sympathetic to Powell. All right. I understand a personal animus here, but hey, 2.5 billion. Joining us now from Philadelphia, Anthony Esposito. He's the founder and CEO of, of Ascalon six Capital. Okay. So he follows all financial things, including the Fed. What's really going on here, in your opinion, Mr. Esposito?

[Anthony Esposito]

I think that Jerome Powell and Bill, thank you so much for having me. First of all, I think Jerome Powell has positioned himself in a really bad way with the president because he's done two things that President Trump despises. First, he's attacked America. Second, he's attacked President Trump and he's done both of those things. Through his seat at the Fed and monetary policy.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So how has he attacked America?

[Anthony Esposito]

He's attacked America with his use of interest rates. If you go back to Trump 1, and I've looked at this pretty in depth, you go back to Trump 1. We had a strong economy, we had low inflation, sub 2%. And Jerome Powell decided that he needed to increase interest rates heading into the tail end of that election. The tail end of that term heading into the election. That made zero sense. Jerome Powell is consistently saying that he's data driven. There was no data at that time to support raising rates into a healthy economy with good employment and with low interest rates. Keep in mind his mandate is full employment and price stability. We were in that position. He was raising rates. He then was told to cut rates by President Biden when he came into office. He cut 175 basis points in 10 days, which is unheard of in 2020. Brought rates to basically zero. And then in 2021 into 22, jacked rates up as inflation was going ballistic. And we had 12, 13, 14% inflation rate under President Biden, threw rates up and created a regional banking crisis. That was that scenario at that point. Then we have a point where he is, where it was steady in rates. We're coming into the election and he decides to cut rates again, 50 basis points heading into the election to be supportive of, or you can make a very strong argument to be supportive of Kamala Harris. Cuz there was really no reason to cut rates at that point.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, all right, so we got it. We got it. So Trump believes, and I think you're right, that number one, Powell is a deep state guy who favors the Democratic Party and, and was manipulating the US Economy to get Democrats elected. Correct. That's what Trump believes. Right.

[Anthony Esposito]

I think he pulls back the US Economy when he needs to under Trump. And I think he, he manipulates the rates to benefit the Democrats.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, but. But Powell's out of there, retiring in May. So why go after him on a Justice Department beef shop the Sherwin Williams.

[Sherwin Williams Announcer]

Winter sale and get 30% off paints and stains. January 9th through the 19th. Whether you're refreshing your interior or exterior, we've got the colors to bring your vision to life. And with delivery, getting everything to your door is easier than ever. Shop online or visit your neighborhood Sherwin Williams store. Click the banner to learn more. Retail sales only some exclusions apply. See store for details. Delivery available on qualifying orders.

[Anthony Esposito]

Well, now I think you get to the point of the personal attack on President Trump. President Trump is taking this in my opinion, as an attack on him, he's not only using the rates to hurt the economy and hurt the American worker, he's actually hurting Trump. Whether it be downplaying or pushing back against an economy that's strong under term one, whether it be trying to influence voters heading into the election last year. I think that Trump at this point is not a fan of Powell. There's no hiding that. But I think when, when the Justice Department decides to investigate or at least just ask the questions about what he said under oath in front of Congress, in front of the Senate, I don't think President Trump is going to step up and say, I don't think that we should do that. He's a big boy. He should be able to answer questions.

[Bill O'Reilly]

And I think, Yeah, I mean, 2.5 billion is a lot of dollars.

[Bob Driscoll]

Sure is.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You know, come on. All right, so there is a bit of retribution in your opinion, in the Justice Department, but there's enough legitimacy to make it not some kind of contrived.

[Randall Woods]

Situation, I would say.

[Anthony Esposito]

I don't think President Trump had anything to do with the subpoena, but I'm sure that he's not losing sleep over it.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, but he knew about it. I mean, how it was a top down Washington run. He might not have known about it before it was issued, but certainly he's up to speed. All right, Mr. Esposito, thanks very much. Very kind of you to help us. And we appreciate it very much, much.

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

There's been a lot going on, foreign policy wise in this hemisphere and we'll get to Iran in a moment. But there's a guy that we, we like, he's a professor of history at the University of Arkansas and he's got a book, John Quincy Adams, A Man for the Whole People. And Adams is very involved with foreign policy because he was an ambassador overseas and in the early part of our republic. And Randall Woods, Dr. Woods joins us now from Fayetteville, Arkansas. So you say apparently that John Quincy Adams would not have approved of Donald Trump trying to reshape this hemisphere to be more pro American. Is that, do I have it correct?

[Randall Woods]

No, I think that he would approve efforts to recreate the Americas to suit our interest. I'm not sure he would have gone about it in exactly the same way. You know, the Monroe Doctrine was both expansionist and isolationist. It was a warning to Europe, the Holy alliance, to stay out of hemispheric affairs. But it was also a kind of statement that, that the hemisphere was going to be. We were going to be the hegemon in the hemisphere and not Europe.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Right. But I would get an A in your class because my hand would go up and go, hey, Doctor, did you know that John Quincy Adams is Secretary of State under James Monroe? How about that? Okay, that's an A. So that's an eight. When the Monroe Doctrine was forged, John Quincy Adams was standing right there going, yay. And now we have the Don Roe Doctrine, which isn't that much difference in the Monroe Doctrine. It's really not, is it?

[Randall Woods]

Yeah, it is. It's about the kind of threat, you know, the US Latin American relations is a history of US intervention in Latin America from the Spanish American War, when we converted Cuba into a protectorate through Theodore Roosevelt's big stick and then Woodrow Wilson's missionary diplomacy.

[Bill O'Reilly]

We intervened.

[Randall Woods]

In the 1930s because of the threat of Japanese and Nazi aggression, and then during the Cold War to combat Castroism and the threat of Sino Soviet imperialism. But I don't think there's the existential threat now.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, let me challenge you on narcotics flooding into this country, killing millions of Americans over periods of time, and they're coming from nations in Central and South America. That's a national security threat, is it not?

[Randall Woods]

Nobody's forcing Americans to take drugs.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, no, that's true, but you have no. All right. Nobody forces anybody. And I have been very harsh on drug addicts because they're helping these cartels. However, that doesn't negate the threat to the country because we have a bunch of idiots that want to get high. And these cartels and Machado, Maduro and the Colombian guy who's going to be neutralized very quickly soon. These are people making money off hurting our country. So president supposed to just do nothing about it? Is that what you say?

[Randall Woods]

I'm not sure that's a good reason. I think, Michelle, I think the Maduro was a bad actor. Is a bad actor.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, he's a corrupt guy. He's got indictments all over the place. Why don't we.

[Randall Woods]

There's a lot of other corrupt regimes around the world.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You're doing a what about now? We'll knock them down one by one. You got Noriega out of there. It was in a scream policy then. And it's the same thing with Maduro and now. Did you know that Maduro seized, and along with chavez in Venezuela, $19 billion worth of US assets? And people are complaining about Trump seizing their oil or regulating their oil. What are you supposed to do? Just walk away, doctor, of $19 billion in theft. Is that what you would do?

[Randall Woods]

Why did Donald Trump pardon the Honduran president?

[Bill O'Reilly]

What? Say that again.

[Randall Woods]

Why did Donald Trump pardon a convicted drug dealer, the former president of Honduras?

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, he did that for political reasons inside of Honduras, as I explained on this broadcast. And it was about getting a pro American party elected. And this guy, this thug that we convicted is still popular down there and that's why he did. It was a purely political move. So. But you can. What about all day long? I'm not saying that everything Donald Trump does is correct. I'm saying the overarch of challenging anti American countries, countries that are hurting me, my children, my family, is a legitimate way to use our power. Last word.

[Randall Woods]

Absolutely, I agree with you. I just think there's a better way to do it.

[Bill O'Reilly]

What better way than how would you stop all the tons of narcotics coming in?

[Randall Woods]

Well, if you look at the history of regime changes during the Cold War, they used the CIA.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, that's what they use it now. The CIA ran that entire Venezuelan operation.

[Randall Woods]

The CIA is an alternative to armed intervention.

[Bill O'Reilly]

The CIA designs the military operations, military action. The Pentagon carries them out. Anyway, very provocative. The book is John Quincy Adams, A Man for the Whole People. And I'm sure you knew this doctor that John Quincy jumped naked into the Potomac river every day. You know, I don't know that had anything to do with his foreign policy, but absolutely you get a little brisk. Okay, thanks.

You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

That is a website called Mediaite, deals with a lot of press stuff and it's a good website. It used to tilt really far left and they brought it back to left center.

[Sherwin Williams Announcer]

From walking barefoot in the snow to hiking for miles for a view, it feels good to connect with our simpler side. Simplifying your wellness with Cachava's all in one nutrition shake feels good too, with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and more. No fillers, no nonsense, just. Just the highest quality ingredients. New customers get $20 off an order of two bags or more now through January 31st when they go to Cachava K A C-H-A-V A.com and use code news.

[Bill O'Reilly]

As a guy who created it along with a few others. Dan Abrams Colby hall writes a column and the column's pretty good. Enough is enough. It's basically criticizing Donald Trump's overreach as President of the United States of I'll read you a portion here and then we'll bring in Mr. Hall. Quote, what distinguishes the current moment is not the impulse to push boundaries, but the scale, speed and brazenness with which these accumulated presidents are being exploited. Obama used drones and faced criticism, but operated within executive branch legal frameworks. Trump exacts, extracts foreign leaders and announces it as a fait accompli. At home, the same logic is playing out through federal law enforcement. ICE agents are defended reflexively before facts are known, before investigations are complete. Oversight is dismissed as obstruction. Questions are treated as attacks. Power is insulated first, examined later, unquote. Colby hall joins us now from Brooklyn. So the mindset of the President of the United States is that his opposition is so entrenched that they don't care about what's good for the country. And so he has to cut through that so he can't go to Congress and say, I want to remove Maduro, and then Congress votes on it five months later because no Democrat will ever vote for anything that Trump wants. This is the president's mindset. Do you understand that?

[Colby Hall]

I do. I think that's a generous description. And I'll say, first of all, thanks for having me on. Secondly, I agree with a lot of what you said during your talking points. Right. I find that we're pretty much aligned on a lot of this stuff, especially the concern with sort of Denmark and Greenland, which is remarkably risky on a number of levels, not just politically. My column Enough is Enough was really about how under an executive branch that literally acts without impunity or with impunity, with zero checks and balances, is acting in a way that really sort of reinforces might makes right, which is a philosophical construct that we long moved past. And it's not really democratic. And the actions of this president reveal a nation that increasingly doesn't look like the America that I grew up and I still love very, very much.

[Bill O'Reilly]

See, I don't have that. I don't have that perception. And I'm just about 25 miles from you in my dwelling. And when you say that he, Trump operates without any constraints. The courts ruled that the president could not send National Guard to L. A and a few other cities because he didn't reach the bar of impending chaos. So he took him out. Trump took the troops, the National Guard. So he's. He's been constrained.

[Colby Hall]

Constitutional, you know, Posse Comitatus basically says federal government cannot send in troops unless the governor of the state asks for it because of chaos. And that's what was ruled the democracy or he's flooding the Constitution, but he's.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Obeying he's not running roughshod. Okay, but that's the way it always happens. Colby, Come on. You take an action and then there's a reaction. That's the way the government always runs.

[Colby Hall]

Here's what I would say. You could defend the extraction of Maduro, the, the sort of way that that was defined as we can do whatever we want with Western hemisphere because it affects our national security. And we're going to use that as a pretext to now threaten to, you know, sort of bomb Iran and to then just sort of invade and take Greenland, like you said. That's. That really threatens and is very risky to our NATO alliance, to be clear. And I want to say this, I have given credit to the Trump administration where I feel like they've deserved it. And in particular, I think the way that the Trump administration has handled Iran vis a vis Israel was masterful and deserves a great deal of credit. I also give him an incredible amount of credit for the way that he cleaned up the abject horror that is the border. The worst thing that Biden ever did was just look away. And I think one can be for getting bad guys out cleaning up the border, but also be opposed to massed ICE agents shooting protesters. And I don't think Renee Good should be dead as a result of trying to.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I don't either. But I think that doesn't mean, that doesn't mean that what the ICE agent did carries any criminal intent. Because I, I have said, and you know this, de escalate it when you have a life death situation. And some of my viewers don't like that. They don't want to hear that. Okay. But every law enforcement agency that I know of has a de escalation program when life and death is on the line. So I'm, I'm behind the law. But Trump is saying, and with absolute validity, I can't bring in Maduro to Congress. I can't bring in nuke bombing in Iran to Congress because they, the other side hates me so much, they're never going to support it. They'll drag their feet. We can't operate secretly in that regard. We can't do military operations with any kind of effectiveness if you're going to debate them for two months. And he's right. And when Noriega came out, that shattered that. And that'll never even get into the courts. Maduro is never going to get in. Okay. He'll be convicted in Brooklyn. You should go over and see him. He's right near your house. All right. And Then he'll go to the penitentiary in Colorado, and that's what's going to happen. And there's not going to be any court hearing about Maduro. I don't even think the Ice age is going to be prosecuted. Now. Do you agree with me that there are 10 states in open rebellion to the United States government because they fail to obey the law? It's okay to protest the law, no problem with that. But when you say, and that's what walls fry on, all of these people are saying, I'm not going to obey the law that has been passed by Congress, not Trump. I'm not obeying it. You're in rebellion, are you not?

[Colby Hall]

I think rebellion is a narrative that oversteps considerably. I remember, I'm old enough to remember when states rights were a big talking point on the Right. And now that's gone away. Right? Like, suddenly we don't care about states rights about stuff.

[Randall Woods]

And now that's.

[Bill O'Reilly]

If you want, if you want, you.

[Colby Hall]

Are basically making situational decisions. Right? And I, and honestly, previously, what you just said, you just walked. You just basically said Trump doesn't want to take Maduro to Congress because he knows he won't get what he wants. I'm sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what the Constitution says you do.

[Bill O'Reilly]

If you have national security concerns behind you. Yes, you do.

[Colby Hall]

Well, yeah, but that, that's very subjective. And to say that there was a national security threat by Maduro, what, you know, I think is hyperbole at best. I think it's absurd.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Tons of narcotics are coming in here.

[Colby Hall]

Far less drugs from other places. Please, let me finish. Look, the whole point of the Constitution is checks and balances. You can't simply say, I'm going to avoid checks and balances if I know that a Constitution or a congressional check and balance is not going to give me what I want. But you can call, you can.

[Bill O'Reilly]

If there's precedent about national security after 9, 11, all of that changed. All of it changed.

[Colby Hall]

Well, I think. Well, so herein lies the gray area of this dialogue, and I appreciate the chance to describe it. I think there's overreach, and I think a lot of people feel that there's overreach. Honestly, in hindsight, I care less about the Maduro extraction because he's clearly a bad guy. And, you know, this is very personal for me because my nephew is on USS Ford. He's a Naval intel officer, and he was very much a part of the whole growler part. And I'm, I'M extremely proud of him, but I'm also concerned about him.

[Bill O'Reilly]

It's a good debate, but I live in a real world and I know it's going to happen. And Trump is not going to lose any of these things at all because of the national security.

[Colby Hall]

When it comes to ice, when it comes to ice, only 28% of the people are sort of agreeing with the narrative that the ICE agent was justified in shooting.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well now, now if he has injuries, that that polling is going to change. But, but even if it doesn't change. All right, Trump is basically saying this and I'll give you the last word on it. My job, I was elected to protect the American people and I'm going to do it. And I am not going to submit to some theoretical process when I believe I have the authority to take out people like Maduro, the Muellers, people who are threats to this country. And, and that's his mindset. And the only way you constrain it is the Supreme Court. That's the only way says no. And the courts, the federal court said no to guard in LA and other places, Oregon. All right. And Trump pulled him back. Last word.

[Colby Hall]

I think you're being very generous. If I don't think a lot of people feel like mullahs in Iran pose a direct threat to their lives. I think you're billions to terror groups.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Billions to terror groups.

[Colby Hall]

I'm telling you. I think geopolitically they are a huge threat and they should be extracted. And you and I agree largely on the foreign policy there. I'm talking about politically. I don't think a lot of people in Overland Park, Kansas, where I grew up, see that as a perfect threat. I also think that a lot of people want immigrants who are illegals extracted from our nation, but they don't want to see mass ICE agents invading homes without a search warrant. They don't want to see protesters shut up.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I'll see that point that ICE has to tighten it up a little bit and has to be more give more of an explanation. All right, Colby, very good debate, very lively. I want everybody to read your column on media. Thanks for taking the time.

Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no spin news, visit billoriley.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Bill. Sign up and start watching today.