Bernard Goldberg (5:30)

All right?

Bill O'Reilly (5:30)

And Europe's not going to help. They won't even give us a dime. All right, Israel didn't have any money. They're totally dependent on the usa. How is the Trump administration going to make that back? I don't know, but it'll probably be through some kind of oil deal. This is the only way I can see that we're going to get back anything out of this whole campaign against Iran. So that, you know, is significant. Now, the Department of War, Haig said, oh, we got a trillion dollars. Look, let's not do that. We are spending ourselves into oblivion in this country. $39 trillion debt. We need to tighten this up. And then individually, I do expect oil prices to come down pretty significantly, pretty fast. Why? Because if they don't, the Trump administration, Department of Energy is going to investigate the American oil companies and they don't want that. They don't want to be investigated because they're gouging us. So I expect that to come down. Is it enough to keep the USA out of a recession? I don't know. I don't know. Is it enough to, for the Republicans to keep the midterms? Hard to say. All right, that's the memo.

Bill O'Reilly (7:08)

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

Bill O'Reilly (7:12)

Now, most Americans are getting their information from the media, which is always now dangerous. It didn't used to be, but now it is because the media is not going to tell you the truth. I'm talking generally. They will. New CBS poll, 3,335 U.S. adults. That doesn't mean these people know anything. They're not registered voters. They're not likely voters, just adults. That means they just sweep them in. We don't know anything whatever. First question, what is your impression of the military conflict with Iran going? Well, 43%, somewhat or very badly, 57% percent. That is media driven. Okay. Second question. Do you think Americans would be willing or not willing pay more for gas during the US military conflict with Iran? Willing, 33. Not willing, 67. That's a frightening number, though, if you'd rather have Iran in possession of a nuclear weapon than pay a little bit more for your gasoline. I don't know what to tell you. Okay? Now, the media itself is divided on this. Conservative media backs Trump. Okay? Liberal media, some of the not progressives understand the big picture. Okay? The progressives totally against it. They hate Trump people. Trump's worse than the mullahs in their eyes. All right. Now here is the con. So the network news and the cables, Ms. and CNN only book guests that hate Trump. With a few exceptions. They're trying to wise up a little. They got to get maybe one or two. But it's out there outnumbered like 20 to one. And they know when they book a hate Trump, guess what the guess is going to say. Roll the tape. President Trump thought he could get a better deal than the Obama administration did. He failed to get that better deal. And he went off and launched a war without planning, without being ready for even some of the most basic things.

Mick Mulvaney (9:37)

This is the second time in the century that the United States has made a drastically bad mistake in terms of engaging in conflict in the Middle East. The first one was in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. And that ushered in then years and years of chaos and violence and terrorism.

Bill O'Reilly (9:55)

I just came from a two hour closed door classified briefing on the war. Just confirmed to me it's totally incoherent. We are not going to be able to achieve any of our stated objectives. Okay? So all three of those men, they hate Trump. They never say anything good about him ever. Or would they in a million years? Why bother having them on? Why bother? Because the network news and two out of the three main cables are invested in ruining Trump. That's why. All right, joining us now from Florida is our media go to guy Bernie Goldberg, who is the purveyor of bernardgoldberg.com which has a sensational special we'll tell you about at the end of the interview. So you go there and absorb Bernie's wisdom, okay? Now Bernie has so much wisdom that you have to absorb it kind of gradually or you'll be overwhelmed by the wisdom. All right, where am I going wrong here, Goldberg?

Bernard Goldberg (11:07)

And I want to make a comment about your rare, rarely happening wisdom. That's a joke. You, you nailed it. How they portray negative news. They bring people on who say all these negative things and then they say, well, it's not us, right? It's just the people who are bringing up. Anyway, anyway, I wrote a column on the website that you mentioned, Bernard Goldberg dot com. This is what I said. If Democrats were ventriloquists, journalists would be the little dummy sitting on their laps. So if Democrats are against the war, and they are liberal, journalists will also be against the war. Now, you and I, Bill, come from a hard news background, so I know you'll agree with this. Journalists should not be cheerleaders for this or any other war. They should ask hard questions. They should be skeptical of what the government tells them. But they've crossed a very bright line with their partisanship. I won't give me just 30 seconds to read a very brief passage from an op ed in the Wall Street Journal, not by a MAGA Republican wearing a red hat, but by Mark Penn, who was an advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton and Andrew Stein, who was the former New York City Council president, obviously a Democrat. Very short passage. Journalists have a right and a duty to report bad news and to question Pollyanna ish reports from the US Government. But many seem to be going beyond that and rooting and rooting for America to fail. Let that sink in. Very short ending. What seems to be driving the coverage is repertorial partisanship. And the Democrats determination to oppose this president no matter what he does. Bingo. That's what it's all about. Democrats want to oppose him no matter what he does. So their media allies do the same thing.

Bill O'Reilly (13:19)

And I think you got to give the New York Times credit for running that op ed. But it's outnumbered.

Bernard Goldberg (13:25)

It's Wall Street Journal.

Bill O'Reilly (13:28)

Well, it was a Wall Street Journal. I read the op ed, I just didn't remember the source of it. Okay. And all of that is true across the board. But here's a real frightening part because I did use that word, introducing a CBS poll that a lot of Americans, maybe most of us, don't pay attention. They don't know really what's happening. They just hear things. And when the media is overwhelmingly against a president, they're going to just hear things that aren't true, that are slanted, whatever it may be, and then make their opinion based on the things they are hearing. I've, I'm seeing more and more of that. How about you?

Bernard Goldberg (14:19)

No, I think you're right. You're on a roll today, Bill. I think you're right about that too. Let's use this as an, as an example. Liberal Democrats and their allies in the media are trashing Donald Trump. This is one of their big reasons that for their opposition to the war, because there was no imminent threat, they say. But for argument's sake, and only for argument's sake, let's say they're right, there was no imminent threat. Would it be better if he had waited until there was an imminent threat? Because if he waited until there was an imminent threat, Iran may have had a nuclear device, nuclear bomb, and they could have hit London, Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv, even New York or Washington possibly. So you know what would happen then, Bill? The same media that is trashing Donald Trump for going to war when there was no imminent threat would be trashing him because he waited too long before there was an imminent threat. So heads they win, tails he loses. The system is rigged.

Bill O'Reilly (15:31)

Now, interesting you brought that up because right after you I'm going to run a clip of Lindsey Graham where I did an interview on our new long form which did discuss in very micro detail the imminent threat. Okay, so you have a basically dishonest media here. I don't think there's any question fair minded people understand that.

Jillian Michaels (15:58)

Do you believe the New York Post has been delivering impactful headlines for over two centuries? And every weekday morning, I'll bring them straight to you. I'm Caitlin Becker, host of the New York Post, Cast From Washington to Wall street. If it matters to you, you'll hear it here. And it wouldn't be the Post without the stories other outlets like to ignore. So ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast. Listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Mike Slater (16:26)

Hey, this is Mike Slater. I have a podcast called Politics by Faith. I would love for you to listen. We take the news of the day and we run it through the Bible. What does the Bible have to say about this? Because there's nothing new under the sun. Read the headlines. Everything's all crazy. World's coming to an end. It's all in the Bible. And after every episode, hopefully you leave with a proper perspective and a biblical piece. Please join us wherever you listen to podcasts and we also have a YouTube page as well. YouTube.com politicsbyfaith

Bill O'Reilly (16:56)

the actual people running the these companies making the calls are dishonest.

Bernard Goldberg (17:06)

I think they're acting like business people and not news people. I think they know who their audience is and they say we're going to give them.

Bill O'Reilly (17:14)

But isn't that dishonesty, though, because they're supposed to be presenting absolutely objective news.

Bernard Goldberg (17:23)

That's right, Bill, and I'm going to break some bad news to you. There's no Tooth Fairy and there's no Santa Claus and there's no Easter Bunny either. It's. Of course we all. They're, they're dishonest. They're doing this for business. They don't, they don't call it the news business for nothing. It's a business and they should be doing that. They should be reporting the truth without partisanship. But they're trying to stay in that, desperately trying to stay in business in this new media landscape by telling the audience precisely what they think the audience wants to hear. Do you believe that's corrupt, by the way?

Bill O'Reilly (18:07)

Yeah, there's no doubt in my mind. Do you believe that the corruption that began in 2016 was when Trump came on the stage and started to succeed, has destroyed the television news industry in particular? Or it was inevitable with social media, and it was inevitable they were going to decline. But it might have been.

Bernard Goldberg (18:36)

It might have been inevitable, but they're getting worse and worse and worse. I mean, if Joe Biden or, or Barack Obama had launched this war, do you think the coverage would be the same?

Bill O'Reilly (18:49)

Of course not. And the, the infantile questions, how long is the war going to. Do you get as angry as I do? I'm sitting there, how long is it? How Would anybody know that?

Bernard Goldberg (19:02)

Well, it's that you're absolutely, I don't know what you've been drinking, but you're absolutely right about that, too. Here's the thing. If this same journalistic bunch were covering d day on January 6, 1944, when 2500Americans and 4400 Allied troops were killed in one day, they would be calling for the impeachment of Franklin Roosevelt and they would try to get Dwight Eisenhower thrown into prison. I mean, you can't count any American death in uniform. Any American in uniform who dies. It's a tragedy, not just for their families, but for all of us. But they count every single one as if you see what's happening and this war is not going to go on. It's not going to end tomorrow. When is it going to end? These are, these are questions without answers. And, and they know what they're doing. And they're doing it to turn their audience, to appeal to their audience who already doesn't like it because of what their audience is hearing from other news people. It's a vicious circle.

Bill O'Reilly (20:22)

Yeah, but with one goal, get Trump.

Bernard Goldberg (20:28)

That's the beginning, the middle and the end.

Bill O'Reilly (20:32)

All right, tell me about bernardgoberg.com March Madness Special. What do you got?

Bernard Goldberg (20:40)

I want to say two things. First of all, it's a half price sale off of already very low prices. But here's the thing, Bill. We're a small website and we're trying to stay relevant. And your audience, the people I'm talking to now, and thanks and thank you for letting me do it, are important to our survival. To be perfectly honest about it. We need your audience. We like your audience and we appreciate you for letting me say these things to your audience.

Bill O'Reilly (21:16)

Now you have a half price going forward and it's a pittance. And I'm saying that not in a derogatory way, but if you want to add to your frame of reference, which really is what this is all about, I mean, when you have a colossus corporate media that's being blatantly dishonest across the board, and you can't discount the right wing networks either because they're feeding the same kind of absolutely, absolutely quote, unquote information, but it's tailored to people who want to believe a certain thing. So the only hope is, is us. We're the only hope.

Bernard Goldberg (22:03)

That's what I was about to say. If somebody wants their views given back to them a hundred percent of the time, don't waste your time coming over to bernardgoldberg.com. i can't do that. Bill and I have been hard news reporters for many years. That's our foundation. That's our basis. We give opinions, but they're based on fairness. At least I hope they are. In my case they are. And in Bill's case they are. And you'll agree with us. A lot of times you won't agree with us or you won't agree with me. All of the time. That's the way I do it. I try to give you my honest opinion, but it's only an opinion.

Bill O'Reilly (22:45)

But that's healthy. And that's what the founding fathers wanted, that kind of vibrant, robust debate with no personal animus or greedy money factor in it.

Bernard Goldberg (22:59)

Let me say this to your audience. You know how Bill knows that Thomas Jefferson told him that person.

Bill O'Reilly (23:05)

That's right. I was Goldberg. Look, you are older than me, and based upon this shot that's going all over the world now, people can see that with their own eyes. All right, Bernard Goldberg Dot com. March Madness. Check it out. Appreciate it, Bernie. Thank you.

Bernard Goldberg (23:25)

Bill, I need, I need your help.

Bill O'Reilly (23:28)

This is the no Spin News Weekend edition.

Bill O'Reilly (23:32)

So the president of Pakistan, Shabazz Sharif, has offered to hold peace talks as an in Islamabad between the United States and I would assume Israel would be in on those talks to some extent. All right. But not a major player. And the government of Iran, the Guardian, that's a newspaper that is not reliable, reports that Vice President Vance would be the chief negotiator, not Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, who had been doing the negotiating before the military action. Again, the Guardian is not reliable. So I can't give you anything other than that's what this newspaper says. The government, Iran predictably says, oh, no, no, we don't want to talk. Yeah, okay. That's like, you know, they don't want to lose face in the Arab world, in the Muslim world and with their own people. But they'll show up if there are talks schedule. Now, Reuters reports the talks may begin this weekend. Reuters is so, so, okay. I'm just giving you what we have. I can't say with certainty that any of this is going to happen. I can just tell you that the Trump administration would like it to happen. Okay. About 2200 Marines are either in or on their way to the Persian Gulf. We don't know why. And the Pentagon is not going to tell anybody why. Why would you do that? So we have ground forces available if certain missions not occupation, but missions need to be done. But the, you know, the Defense Department, Department of War, whatever they are, they're not going to say, hey, this is where the Marines are. This is what we're going to do. Come on. But the reporters keep asking, okay, a Pentagon official says that due to security situations, we can't answer any questions that's legitimate. Usually the government dodges and it doesn't want to answer questions here. In a battle front situation that's legitimate in Ukraine, Zelensky says he has irrefutable proof that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran that is likely an accurate situation. Putin is the master of evil. That's why he's on the COVID confronting evil right next to the Ayatollah. All right, so I'm sure Russia is doing bad things, trying to make it more difficult for the United States. So I believe that report, The United Nations UNICEF, which is the children's arm of it, says that 324 children have been killed so far in a conflict. 206 in Iran, 118 in Lebanon, four in Israel, one in Kuwait. Now the Lebanon thing is interesting because Lebanon got involved at the behest of Iran and it was Hezbollah. It's not the government of Lebanon, it's the terror group Hezbollah. It's the same thing with Hamas. So they start firing rockets at Israel civilians. What do you think Israel's going to do though? They fire rockets back. Now I justifying anything, I'm just telling you that perspective is needed in covering the story. So the kids are caught in the middle just like Hamas civilians were caught in Gaza because Hamas hid behind them. We all understand. I hope so. So how did the UN get those numbers? It's impossible to get them. So they took them from the various governments which then you say, okay, you got to be skeptical. But be that as it may, children, women, civilians, everybody's suffering. World would be a lot better place if we didn't have any of this, right? It's so simple. So summing up, I think that they're over the weekend, this weekend coming stuff is going to happen and I'm hoping good stuff for the country's sake could be wrong. And that's the memo.

Bill O'Reilly (28:20)

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

Bill O'Reilly (28:24)

Joining us out of Washington D.C. is Mick Mulvaney. You know him, he was President Trump's chief of staff for 15 months at the end of Ms. Trump's first term. He is now the co chair at Actum and he's on CNBC and News Nation. So my question is very simple. I'm a simple man as you know, Mick, is President Trump the same leader? We'll talk about him as a human being in a minute. But is he the same leader now than he was when you were Chief of staff?

Mick Mulvaney (29:07)

Yeah, it's a really interesting question. I'm going to give you, try to give you a little nuanced answer. And the answer is, yeah, some places and some places he's different. Keep in mind, I was chief, what, seven years ago now, and I don't think any of us are exactly the same person or same leader that we would have been seven years ago. I see some similarities, Bill, and I see some differences. The big differences that I've seen is that in the first term, I really think Trump valued having people around him who aggressively disagreed with him. Maybe not publicly, but certainly privately. Look, he hired me. I was one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Budget Committee on the Hill. And Donald Trump is not the world's most fiscally conservative person. He hired Gary Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs, to advise him on economic issues. And Gary's a. A free trader. Donald Trump is clearly not a free trader. He welcomed those types of disagreements in the first term. In fact, he sort of cultivated it. He wanted to see people fight with each other. I remember going to trade meetings and he used to put the free traders, you know, me and Gary on one side of the room and the protectionist, Peter Navarro and Bob Lighthizer on the other side of the room and watch us argue. He liked that. That's how he chose to manage. I see a little bit of that in this term. I know for. Oh, by the way, and don't forget, he hired John Bolton, you know, the most neoconservative person you can to be National Security Advisor. And Donald Trump is not a neoconservative in this term. I get the sense that he doesn't have as much interest in doing that. It's still some. Russ Vogt, who runs the omb, worked for me, probably more fiscally conservative than I am, and he's still on the team and very highly regarded, but generally speaking, I'm just not. I don't get the sense that he wants that same sort of. Of active and aggressive disagreement that he wanted in the first term. So, yeah, there's some similarities. There's some differences probably to be expected with the passage of time. He's a different person, the country's a different place. So I don't think that's necessarily bad. It's just different.

Bill O'Reilly (30:58)

Is it true that he's more confident in his second term because he learned some very hard lessons in his first term.

Mick Mulvaney (31:05)

I'm not sure if it's the first lessons. I think he's confident right now in the military. I think the actions in Venezuela, the action six months ago in Iran at the Natanz nuclear facility gave him a certain level of confidence. We didn't see that. We didn't do any of that in the first term by choice. And I think maybe he, that's a new data point for him that he thought he could use the military in a way that what didn't really occur to us in the first term. I don't think Donald Trump has any interest, as you mentioned in your introduction, of putting, you know, troops on the ground in Iran on a permanent or semi permanent invasion type of basis. But I, and he didn't want that in the first term either. But this sort of what I call Tomahawk diplomacy, the strategic sort of stuff, the standoff weapons, that was something we didn't even consider using the first term. And clearly he's not shy about using it Now.

Bill O'Reilly (31:55)

It is true that a lot of people that he has hired have been sycophants and just say, yes, I'm the death and whatever he wants is fine. But is that understandable? Because he got burned by a lot of people in his first term, Kelly. People like that, they turned on him. They burned him. There were a lot of leaks, remember the leaks all over the place. And he then became very distrustful of the swamp.

Mick Mulvaney (32:27)

Yes and no. And again, that's the second time. I'm trying to give you a nuanced answer, but these are complicated questions. Yeah, he got burned in the first term. There's no question. I mean, James Mattis was actively working against Donald Trump. John Kelly, my predecessor's chief of staff, was actively working against him. Many of the people saw themselves as the so called adults in the room there to protect the country against the President. That's a fundamentally wrong position for any member, unelected member of staff to take. And if Trump sort of felt burnt by that, you can't blame him. That being said, there were people that he, that he trusted and knew and worked well with in the first administration who did disagree with him from time to time. I was one of those. I never turned on Trump, but I did have the confidence to go and close the door and tell him something that maybe, maybe I disagreed with. So I don't think you need to go as far as just firing everybody or not putting people in there. Who would disagree with you at all? There are ways to get there.

Bill O'Reilly (33:23)

Who? He's chosen people for loyalty as one of the top considerations. I think a lot of this turned, and I'm looking at it from a historical point of view now on January 6th. So he had a close relationship with Pence, his vice president. And I think. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they launched a couple of times a week, and Pence gave him fairly candid advice. Correct.

Mick Mulvaney (33:53)

Did. Okay.

Bill O'Reilly (33:55)

So that. That relationship was pretty strong until January 6th. All right. When Pence wouldn't go in and challenge the vote. And so Pence was out the door. And then a more loyal guy, in Donald Trump's opinion, Vance took his place. And then you saw that in the Department of War with Hegseth, who is a patriot. I mean, I would never argue that he's served his country well, but certainly very inexperienced and. And another loyalist. And it just looks down the line like that's what he did. He wanted to take any chances with people, and the January 6 thing hardened him.

Jillian Michaels (34:42)

Hey, podcast listeners. Jillian Michaels here. If the world is feeling unstable right now and the noise and the chaos is overwhelming, if you're looking for clarity and truth, good or bad, I invite you to check out my podcast, Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels. Twice a week, I break down the biggest issues shaping our lives, and I sit down with bold guests for fearless, honest conversations. There are no talking points. There's no agenda. Just real discussions that challenge assumptions and demand clarity. Subscribe to Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels today. Anywhere you get your podcasts.

Bill O'Reilly (35:22)

Would I be wrong there? No.

Mick Mulvaney (35:25)

But I cringe when I hear people say, oh, my goodness, this president hired loyalists.

Bernard Goldberg (35:31)

They all do.

Mick Mulvaney (35:32)

Eric Holder was not disloyal to Barack Obama confidants. The question is, is not loyalty? I was loyal to the president. In fact, I was so loyal to the president, I decided to give him honest opinions. When he asked me about questions, that's what he said.

Bill O'Reilly (35:46)

But you had a falling out with him over January 6th, though.

Mick Mulvaney (35:50)

Yeah, that's right, I did. Not to the same extent that Mike Pence did, but that's. Sure. If your question is this, is he getting good advice? I think that's really what we're talking about. Is he getting good advice from people? And I think the answer is generally yes. I do hope that behind closed doors, there are people who are saying, Mr. President, this might not be such a good idea. My fear, Bill, my fear is this, is that instead of giving them those honest opinions, there's people, especially more junior people in the White House. You know, we talked about the Cabinet here, but the junior people who are around the President all the time are goading him on, oh, Mr. President, I think it'd be a great idea if we put your name on the Kennedy Center. I don't think Donald Trump came up with that. I think that was some obsequious junior staffer trying to get in good with the president. And I don't think that serves him well generally in the long run. That's maybe not the best example, but that's powerful guy.

Bill O'Reilly (36:41)

Most powerful guy in the White House right now is Stephen Miller. And Miller is more militant about everything than Donald Trump is. But I think that Miller still has a presidency. Or would I be wrong on that?

Mick Mulvaney (36:59)

No, he absolutely does. You're not wrong at all. The one thing about Stephen is that it's a constant. Stephen was just as adamant and militant about this in the first term. He just is. I think one of the differences is that Trump really, really did latch on to immigration as one of the key issues in the 2024 election. That's not to say that it wasn't like that in 2026, excuse me, 2016. But clearly him not being Hillary Clinton was also a big part of.

Bill O'Reilly (37:25)

And it worked. And Trump like success and, and Miller can take success. Now, I have been in a few

Mick Mulvaney (37:33)

cabinets, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but they have fixed the fundamental underlying issue of the security of the southern border we talk about.

Bill O'Reilly (37:39)

But it got them elected. That's got him elected. I mean, you know, that pounding of this is insane and hurting a country, and I'm going to fix it, which he did. Now, as a civilian, I don't work for anybody but myself. I've been in some Cabinet meetings, serious stuff, invited by President Trump because I believe he, like you, he knows that I'm not going to tow any party line or ideological line or anything. When he asked me a question, I give him an honest answer. I never insert myself without being asked, ever. I don't call him. I don't do any of that. He's got come to me. But when I was in those Cabinet meetings, those guys in the White House were not happy to see me. They were not pleased because I would go, I would go out of the box and I would say, I'm writing about it in my book, which will be out in September, Confronting America. I spill it out pretty vividly. But I'll give you one example, Panama. And it was early on, and you remember the rattle in the cage and we're going to go down there and take over the canal. Well, I was in that meeting and I said, you don't have to do any of this. You know, here's what you can do. You'll get everything you want. And it absolutely happened. The whole thing happened the way that I had drawn it out, because I covered the wars in Central America. I know the turf, all right? I know how it goes. Well, those guys didn't like that at all. The, the advice. And I understand, I mean, here's this O'Reilly guy coming in from God knows where sitting with us, and he's given a, and the president's listening to him. They didn't like it. So I got a little taste of the office politics of the office.

Mick Mulvaney (39:41)

I don't remember you doing that when I was the chief of staff, but other people did. And here's how I would respond to it. I get the concern because a lot of folks who come into those meetings from the outside, whether it's a Cabinet meeting or just an Oval Office meeting, aren't familiar with all the work that has been done up to that point of arriving at a certain conclusion or at least getting to someplace along the line of making a decision. So I get that little level of frustration. But to me, it was more important. Number one, did the president like it and was it good information? Number two, that's what we're looking.

Bill O'Reilly (40:09)

He made fun of me. I don't know whether he liked it or not, but it evolved the way that I laid it out. I was at Harvard two weeks ago, giving a little seminar to the pinheads at the Kennedy School, my alma mater. And, you know, they don't like Trump, generally speaking, in that school. And they were asking me questions about my interactions with the president. And what I said to them was, look, what you're hearing from the media isn't true, generally speaking. So they're shading it negative toward Trump. I can tell you that in every single conversation I have had. And, you know, I did the first interview with him in 2016 when he, when he announced in every single conversation, number one, he never lied to me. And number two, he knew what the doocy was talking about. He knew.

Bernard Goldberg (41:10)

Yeah.

Bill O'Reilly (41:11)

All right. So if you think that this guy is some, you know, bon vivant shouldn't be there because he doesn't, he doesn't know what he's doing, you're crazy. And he's straight up with me. And that silenced them because they couldn't challenge me on it because I've had more conversations with President Trump than any journalist in the country. A lot of them are private, and I always honor that. Now, the man himself, I have seen a change in the man. I'm not ready to define it yet. Have you seen a change in him?

Mick Mulvaney (41:49)

I mean, look, he's what, almost 80 now? I guess he was 72 when I worked for him. So that, that's a big difference for everybody. I do, I think he seems a little bit more tired sometimes. Yes. But I know that people offer, you know, examples of his, you know, what he calls the weave as sign of mental decline. And I'm like, that's crazy. Donald Trump.

Bill O'Reilly (42:10)

There's always no mental decline. That's stupid.

Mick Mulvaney (42:14)

There's a great ESPN 30 for 30 from, I don't know, 40 years ago about the SFL. I encourage people to go back and watch it because the Donald Trump, when he was in his, I don't know, late 30s, early 40s, is the exact same Donald Trump you see today. So now I've not seen any mental decline yet at all. Does he look a little bit more tired? Yeah, I mean, I, I can tell

Bill O'Reilly (42:34)

you that with certainty. However, he's less restrained in his statements, in my opinion. So when Mueller dies, he says, I'm glad he's dead. I don't know if he would have said that in his first four years.

Mick Mulvaney (42:54)

Yeah, he did. He said the same thing about McCain. I mean, not this example.

Bill O'Reilly (43:00)

Yeah, I don't know if he criticized McCain. I remember that, but it wasn't that personal. Yeah, it wasn't that. That was, that was a tough statement, which I understood. And I wrote a Message today on BilloriLeigh.com about it because Mueller had attacked his family. And if you attack somebody's family, I mean, that changes everything. So you haven't seen a big change in Donald Trump the man?

Mick Mulvaney (43:25)

Not really. Just on the stuff on the overseas trips. Look, those trips are brutal. And as you know, he doesn't sleep. He only sleeps about four hours a night. Anyway, the man's physical conditioning is just. It's outrageous. I've known a couple of people who are able to do that. I couldn't do it, but at some point it has to wear on you. You know, a 30 hour flight back from the Middle east is gonna, is gonna take its toll on everybody.

Bill O'Reilly (43:49)

How about being moody?

Mick Mulvaney (43:52)

No, I don't. I mean, I'm not with him day to day like I used to be. So my interaction with him is on television. I just watched the interview that he gave today. I've not seen any, any, any, any large swings in that. He's, it's, he is a little bit more willing to push back on the press, but that's a degree, that was something he did in the first term anyway. I do think if there's, Let me see if I can make sense out of it this way, Bill. He's not restricted by having to run for office again. And when you're the first term president, you're also automatically, on day one, a candidate for reelection. Everybody is right. And so you're always in the back of your mind going, how is this gonna play in the next elections? And I think that's different this time. He doesn't have to do that. We watch the equity markets very, very closely in the first term because we knew it was a big deal for the voters. I don't think they're as restricted by that. They pay more attention now, for example, I think, to the bond markets than they do the equity markets. Equity markets have still done very well under Trump, don't get me wrong. But I think that the flow of the day might be a little bit different because he's not running for reelection,

Bill O'Reilly (44:58)

but he has to win the midterms or two years gonna be real rough.

Mick Mulvaney (45:03)

And I think that's an uphill battle. The, listen, if gas is $4 a gallon in August and September, they've got a problem.

Bill O'Reilly (45:11)

Yeah, it shouldn't be, though. I think they're going to wrap this Iran thing in the next, in the short term, let's put it that way. And then gas prices will have to come down fairly rapidly, but the damage done, you never know. You don't know if recession or overseas or what's going on. Final question. Donald Trump has got a big thing coming up with China and a lot of people don't understand his interactions with Putin, with Xi, but they're different. My observation, they're different than he interacts with most other world leaders. Would I be wrong there?

Mick Mulvaney (45:59)

I don't think so. You know, the way I try to describe it is that just because you get elected president doesn't mean you're not a human being. And he reacts the way that ordinary people would and under similar circumstances. Look, a lot of the European leaders when I was there in the first term were not shy about showing their disdain for Donald Trump. And if I come on TV and I, you know, I clearly don't like you and I let it known that, let it be known that I don't like you, and my body language is like that. My verbal language is like that. That's going to affect our relationship. And I think that was part of the difficulty he had for examp with Justin Trudeau in Canada, Angela Merkel in Germany, et cetera. You can go down the list. Donald Trump does not pick his friends based upon their politics. He doesn't like conservatives more than liberals. He likes people that he likes. And I think he just gets along with Xi to a certain extent. He gets along with Putin. I still, I, you know, I do worry a little bit about the relationships. And at the end of the day, when Trump comes out and have these meetings like he's going to go to, he's supposed to go to China at the end of this month. It's now been delayed, and says he's got a great personal relationship with Xi. That's wonderful. But what I would tell him when we did this in the first term is, Mr. President, that's great. But the American people don't care as much about your relationship with that leader as they do is what that means to them. So we need to show them the benefits of that good relationship.

Bill O'Reilly (47:22)

But he feels he can leverage deals with these guys if he has.

Mick Mulvaney (47:27)

See the deal.

Bill O'Reilly (47:28)

Yeah. If. Yes. Or you. Hey, Mick, thanks very much for helping us out. We really appreciate it, and I hope we can talk again soon.

Bill O'Reilly (47:35)

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

Bill O'Reilly (47:39)

So I was laying down late last night when the phone rang, and it was President Trump. To me, even though he's my friend and I've known him for 35 years as the President of the United States, and it doesn't really matter what time it is. So anyway, we had our usual back and forth, a lot of it off the record, but I had to go on the record for a couple of things that I want to tell you about. Yesterday, we analyzed that a negotiation between Iran and the USA might be led by Vice President Vance. But I cited the source for that, the Guardian newspaper, and I told you it is an unreliable publication. And it's exactly what it is. It's not going to be Vice President Vance taking the lead in the negotiation. It is going to be Witkoff and Kushner. The two have been doing it all along. Now, Iran has not agreed yet. I don't know whether they will, but US Authorities are ready to go to Pakistan or Turkey or wherever a negotiation might take place. The problem is that there's no one in charge in Iran right now. The President doesn't even know he's going to show up for a negotiation. Could be Omar the tent maker. I mean, if you call over there, it says, well, line one used to be so and so, but he's dead. And I'm making fun of it, but it's true. So the upper echelons of the Iranian government, the theocracy, they're all dead and nobody really knows who's in charge. There are rumors.

Bill O'Reilly (49:46)

Are you stuck staring at your W2? Are tax refund worries holding you back? You probably have FOMO. The fear of messing up the fix using TurboTax on Intuit credit Karma. They find every credit and deduction to help you get every refund dollar you deserve or your money back. It's time to overcome your fear of messing up and get your taxes done right.

Bill O'Reilly (50:10)

Start filing today in the Credit Karma app, abcd. But it is so chaotic in Iran right now that there's no certainty at all. I'm going to get into in a few moments. You might want to get a pen and paper because you're not getting honest information from the American media about this Iranian action. I will give you honest information, but I want to start with the dissent to the war in Iran. Okay? Now, I like dissent. I'm a maverick. I think dissent is really, really good. But it's got to be responsible. Can't be personal animus. And that's what we're seeing here. So on Saturday, there is a no Kings, the third no Kings demonstration all around the country. And this is an anti Trump, we hate Trump demonstration. Okay? We've seen it. We know what it is. There's no real difference. The grievances are, you know, sending masked agents into the streets, terrorizing communities, immigrant families, terrorizing, no warrants. Threats to overtake elections, getting health care, environmental problems and education solved. Rigging maps to silence voter. You know, the usual litany of progressive grievances. A few are legit. Most are just made up fabrications. All right? I mean, there aren't people being detained without warrants. All right? There are judicial warrants signed by judges, and then there are Homeland Security warrants signed by superiors in that organization. You gotta have a warrant. Take somebody in. Simple lie. All right, so no Kings is based. This demonstration on Saturday is based in. Ready? Minneapolis. Hello. And Bruce Springsteen is going to be there. So is Bernie Sanders and Attorney General Keith Ellison and Jane Fonda. They're trotting out Jane. Now, I'm mocking this because it means nothing. I mean, these people don't want to talk about legitimate issues. They want an open border. Progressives want an open border. Everybody comes in. Everybody. And then they stay. That's amnesty. They want amnesty. So millions and millions and millions of people are absorbed into our country. That's what they want. Say it. I respect you if you said it. Now, the funding of this is fascinating. So it comes from a group called Indivisible. That's from the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, Indivisible. And nobody knows anything about that organization. You can look it up, but it's shadowy and right. But the big money is coming from Soros. As usual. Soros pumped about 8 million into the no King protest. The two priors in this one, Soros behind it, aclu, which is no longer a civil rights organization, it's a far left fanatical group. And Planned Parenthood. So they're in on it, too. These are the big organizations behind it. And a lot of the money that comes in, and you'll see it if you watch television coverage, and it'll be plenty of it over these no Kings thing. You'll see the buses, you'll see the signs. You'll see the people organized. All of that takes money. And it's dark money because the commentators and the news reporters, they don't know where the money comes from and they don't care as long as it's a big crowd. That's what they care about. As long as Trump looks bad. Okay? But the dark money component here is very, very disturbing because money can undermine democracy. It's not hard to do it. So you will remember that on January 26th of this year, we broke a story about Neville Roy Singham. Okay? There he is. He's a communist. He lives in Shanghai, China. Very close ties to the Beijing government. Now, he is behind a lot of the dark money stuff, okay? And we reported that, that Singham has been in this arena for nine years, ever since he sold his technology company called ThoughtWorks for about $800 million. Now, you would say, well, how can you live in a communist country if you have $800 million? Wouldn't the government take that away from you? No. As long as you're serving the government. There are a lot of billionaires in China. They serve the government. And so does Singham. Singham is an American citizen. Can't come here, sets one foot on our soil, it'll arrest him. Okay? But he is a real, real threat to every American. And 99% of Americans have no idea who the man is. This is what I said in January ago. His name is Neville Roy Singham. He's a billionaire. Tech guy, lives in Shanghai, China. He works with the Chinese government. He has a 5001, 3C in the United States called Breakthrough News. Where he funnels money to places like the People's Forum in New York City and other and Minnesota radical left organizations. He's deeply involved with the insurgency and the sedition against the federal government. This guy, we gave you all the information. He's a communist guy. Well now Fox News Digital has launched a five part series on Singham. And we congratulate them. Not going to see that on CBS or CNN or ABC or NBC. They don't care. But Fox News Digital has come up with some very interesting information about $300 million. Singham is pumped into the following nonprofits. Code Pink, Breakthrough Media, justice and Education Fund, People's Forum, People Support Foundation, Trans Tri Continental ltd. He did pump the money in through Goldman Sachs. Can you believe this? And he got tax breaks from the IRS to pump the money in.300 million. Now we called Goldman Sachs because we're fair people. You can come back to me here. We're fair people. And we got a guy named Tony Fratto on the phone. He's the spokesman for Goldman and he says that they have terminated Singham's fund. But they did it only last month. Okay, I'm sorry. February 2024. 13 months ago. 13 months ago. But Singham used Goldman Sachs and he had tax deductions to undermine the American government and system. All right. His main outfit now is the People's forum located at 14th street in Manhattan, New York City. They are the ones that funnel the money out locally. And Code Pink answer, He's married. Singham is to the co founder of Code Ping, Jody Evans. And guess where they all showed up last week? Havana. They all showed up to prop up the Cuban government which is on the ropes now. The Justice Department. Come on, come on. Cash Patel. Hello. Okay, you got to investigate this. This is subversion at the highest level using our system. And maybe there's an investigation, but nobody's telling us. Justice Department is the only mechanism on the planet that can stop this and expose it. If you go out tonight and say, hey, you know this guy Roy Singham? Nobody's going to know it. This is a suppression very, very dangerous. And all the progressives, all these idiots out. No King, if you go up and go say how about Neville Roy Singerman, you know he bought that sign for you. Who? Who? No idea. This is bad. Now we're proud that we broke the story. An independent news agency, the no spin News billorilly.com you all know, and we applaud. Fox News Digital picked it up. They picked it right up. Listen, if you watch Fox News, okay, And I don't have time to watch a lot of it, and I don't really learn a lot there, but what we do, they monitor it very, very closely. And it's smart to do that because what we say is true. And that's the memo.

Bill O'Reilly (60:21)

You're listening to the no Spin news, Weekend Edition.

Bill O'Reilly (60:25)

Okay, Final thought. As we said, we'll do it. Live drops tomorrow, okay? Earlier for premium and concierge, Remember, about noon and then late afternoon for everyone else. So the program, the Sopranos, still all over the world. A phenomenon. Unbelievable phenomenon. It began on January 10, 1999, not long ago. On the air for eight years, okay? The centerpiece was James Gandolfini, okay? He died at age 51 from a heart attack while vacationing in Rome, Italy. Now, all the cast very, very close. Steve Sharipa, you know him, he was not only in the Sopranos, but in Blue Bloods. He never wanted to be a actor at all. But anyway, he was close to Gandolfini. Roll the tape.

Steve Sharipa (61:28)

Jim was always a pro. You know, people say, did you guys have fun on the set? Yeah, we had fun. It was all business. He was working 16 hours a day, five days a week. And listen, a great guy, not without problems. I mean, that's common knowledge, right? But not on the set. Never. When he was working, you saw none. There was none of that.

Bill O'Reilly (61:48)

Was he the leader of the gang?

Steve Sharipa (61:49)

Absolutely.

Bill O'Reilly (61:50)

Okay.

Steve Sharipa (61:50)

So positive way.

Bill O'Reilly (61:51)

So.

Steve Sharipa (61:52)

So you can't come in and, you know, it was a good vibe. It really was like a family. We were close, very respectful. Nobody could come in and be disrespectful to one another. That wasn't flying either.

Bill O'Reilly (62:06)

All right, so Gandolfini was kind of like the. The chief of police, if you want to use a band.

Steve Sharipa (62:12)

I mean, you know, but. But. But kind of by example, you know, I mean, he was the guy, you know?

Bill O'Reilly (62:17)

But it was such an intense program. Do you guys have any laughs off Gavin?

Bernard Goldberg (62:20)

No.

Steve Sharipa (62:20)

No, absolutely. We went out constantly. I mean, we enjoyed every moment. I mean, those guys with Michael Jim were in their late 30s. I was my early 40s. We went out with.

Bill O'Reilly (62:30)

We.

Steve Sharipa (62:30)

We were, like, playing it for the Yankees.

Bill O'Reilly (62:33)

So Sharifa gives us all the inside stuff on Hispranos and Blue Bloods, and he's a little teed off. Blue Bloods got canceled by cbs. He's a pretty good explanation of why that happened. So again, that is. We'll do it live tomorrow and we hope you check it out. The other one is a podcast I appeared on Fly on the Wall with David Spade and Dana Harvey. Roll that. I feel like I'm on your show. Speed looks like he's in a bat cave. You look like you're in Bali, Indonesia. You got to have plants in podcasts because most people your interview are potted plants. Anyway, shots fired. Thanks for having me on, you guys. I really appreciate it. Very nice of you. You seem to have unlimited energy. Are you going to take a nap after this podcast? I may take a nap during the podcast. That's what most of the customers do. I wrote the book specifically for the church lady. She demanded that I write Confronting Evil to get all the evil out there. What the church lady commands, I do. I talked to her before I came out. I can only paraphrase it. Well, well, well. Mr. Bill O'Reilly writes a book about naughty people when he could have been writing about. So it goes on like that. You can catch Fly on the wall on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube. That drops tomorrow. So you can see. And we'll have all this on billowreilly.com we'll have all the links and all of that stuff. So I'm overexposed, I understand. But this stuff is entertaining and informative. That's the key. People learn stuff, but they have fun doing it. That's why we're so successful, because we don't take ourselves that seriously even, you know, sometimes we have to because there are terrible things happening. But we like to bring in a value and we have it this weekend. So we hope you check out billoriley.com thank you for watching no Spin News tonight. We will see you again on Monday.

Bill O'Reilly (64:43)

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 billoriley.com Sign up and start watching today.

Bill O'Reilly (65:04)

Esto Valle la peren TikTok Shop Tiajuda Descubrier productos de buen valorio Fertas or

Jillian Michaels (65:09)

Preza rapido Simbus que das interminables solo buenas compras descarga TikTok aura.