C (5:22)

Hey, Bill, it's good to have you. It's good to be with you. Great to be on your program. Thanks for the invitation. It's a good question. I think there was the perception that not everything was as orderly as it could have been under the Biden administration. I think we were certainly vocal about some real criticisms that we had. The way that they enforced immigration law at the border, the way that they really didn't coordinate the arrivals, they didn't do enough to. To coordinate it in a secure, in an orderly, in a safe way here at the border. The way that they didn't coordinate the arrival of people into many of the interior cities like we saw in New York, that generated Perceptions of chaos that generated the perception that the system wasn't working. And I think that we were fairly critical. There were also a number of people because they did take some real steps in the direction of increased enforcement at the border. And, and here in El Paso, for example, during the Biden administration, we saw the numbers of people skyrocketing, the numbers of people who were dying at the border skyrocketing because there was no real way.

B (6:31)

And Homan made that point. But look, we researched your organization. We didn't find anything that you objected to the open border policies of the Biden administration. No statement, no interview by you, nothing. So you might have been disturbed by the chaotic aspect of it, but you certainly didn't come out and say, look, we need to stop this. So Trump gets elected, he stops it almost immediately. So what you saw and your agency had to deal with disappeared in about 45 days. Did you object to Trump stopping it?

C (7:07)

Well, I think that we all, we all agree. I think Americans, you know, whether they're on the right or on the left, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, that we need to have a well managed border.

B (7:17)

Okay, but what Trump did, though, let's get specific, not theoretical theory gets us nowhere in this interview. Trump stopped it. Do you object to the way he did it?

C (7:28)

Yeah, I certainly have some issues with the way he did it because.

B (7:31)

Okay, give me one objection. What did he do that you don't like?

C (7:36)

You know, that there's a cost to doing what the President did. The president basically, you know, he shredded our system of asylum and he shredded our system of receiving refugees. People who are fleeing, you know, they're fleeing wars, they're fleeing serious violence, they're fleeing serious causes of poverty, which are driving them to flee and, you know, to migrate to our border in search of protection.

B (7:59)

Okay, so you think that he's shredding it now? The official policy of Homeland Security is you can apply for asylum in the United States. You have to go to a port of entry to do so. You can't just be caught in the desert in Texas or Arizona, say to the ICE agent or the border patrol agent, I want asylum. Which is what Biden allowed. That was the big thing. They disregarded the Biden administration. The law Congress passed in 1952 saying all asylum must go through the American consulate or embassy in the home country or in the American ports of entry. Now, Trump is enforcing that. You can still apply for asylum here. So you have an objection to that?

C (8:47)

Well, I'd question that a little bit, Bill, because I think that the system of asylum really isn't being respected, neither at ports of entry nor between ports of entry. I'd quibble a little bit with how you characterize asylum law, because people do have the right under our federal law to apply for asylum, even if they were to cross in between, but they.

B (9:05)

Could still do that. They don't have the right to apply for it on the ground. They have to go to a port of entry or an American facility in their home country. That's the law. That's what it says there.

C (9:17)

We'd have to disagree, because right now you're not able to go to a consulate in Mexico or in Central America to apply to asylum. Simply doesn't.

B (9:24)

Why not?

C (9:25)

You can go to a port of entry. I can tell you right now from my experience, you know, I'm only just a couple of miles from the port of entry here in El Paso. If you were to apply for asylum there, you're going to get turned back. You're going to get sent back to Mexico. So the system right now is not functional. We don't have an asylum system in the United States right now.

B (9:40)

Let me look into that, because I, you know, from what I understand, it is still a functioning system, but if you're right, you're right, and I'll report it. Okay, let's move ahead. So you've got now between 10 and 15 new migrants that weren't here in the first Trump administration that are now here. What is the responsibility of the United States government to. To support those people?

C (10:06)

Yeah, you raise a good question. And I think you said earlier in the segment that the United States government really does have a responsibility to know who's coming into our country, and we do important. We've got to manage the border so that it's done in a safe way. We've got to protect the national security of our country, and we've got to protect local communities. If people are threats to our community, as you said earlier, you support immigration enforcement of those who are threats. We do have to go after legitimate threats. We shouldn't be allowing anyone to game the system to exploit the system. We shouldn't be allowing traffickers to take advantage of the broken system. Immigration enforcement really does need to prioritize safety. We can agree on that. Now, what do we do with the other folks who are in the country, some of whom have been in the country for a long time, many who've been here for more than 10 years, many who've been here for more than 20 years, many people who have roots in the country. Their children are going to our schools. They might have a small business. What do we do about those folks? That's the question on the table right now whether you agree with what's happening on the border or not. The question right now is what do we do with what we're seeing in the country around enforcement? You mentioned the bishop statement. I think the big takeaway from the Bishops is that they're really pushing back against mass deportation as a strategy for dealing with this population.

B (11:23)

But it's really not mass because, I mean, if you look at how many migrants are being detained, 5% would be a hard number. All right. Of all the people who have allowed in here under Biden, but I understand that. I would go a different way. You don't object to criminal aliens being deported immediately, do you?

C (11:46)

Well, I think we do need to remove anyone who's a threat to the safety of our.

B (11:50)

So criminal aliens gone. And that includes DUIs, domestic services. Right. The problem is, according to Director Homan, who's an honest man. I mean, he's a hard. I was going to say hard. He's a hard guy. But when they raid looking for migrants that have judges, orders signed for deportation and criminals, when they raid, very often there are others with them. Girlfriends, brothers, sisters, children who are here without credentials, and they have to bring them all in. That's what the government says. Is that wrong?

C (12:32)

Well, as you said, I do think we've got to target people who are threats to our local community, but that's not what we're seeing right now. The data are pretty clear, Bill. If we look at everybody, for example, who's been targeted and arrested and detained this year under the Trump administration, 2/3 of people don't have a criminal conviction. So that's the vast majority. We're talking about the overwhelming people. Amount of. The overwhelming percentage of people who have been targeted.

B (12:57)

Okay. But one third with criminal interactions, that's a hell of a lot of people in danger. But I'm with you. We don't have a disagreement there. If there's another way. Yeah. If there's another way to adjudicate peaceful undocumented migrants, then we should explore that. Congress's responsibility, of course, do that, and they don't do it there.

C (13:21)

We agree.

B (13:22)

Yeah.

C (13:22)

We've got a broken system, and both parties are at fault, and it's been broken for a long time. And that's the reason that we're in this predicament right now, because we haven't. We've kicked the can both. Both the president, the White House, 100%.

B (13:34)

You can't be going a 1952 law and it's 2025 and you people sit around do nothing. Now the Catholic Church, if you look at the theology, are you Catholic?

C (13:47)

I am just like, okay, we're Catholics, okay?

B (13:51)

So we have to be compassionate. Let's face it, the US economy is under stress, national debt rising, trade war shaking the markets. And meanwhile China is dumping the dollar and stockpiling gold. That's why I protected my savings with physical gold and silver through the only dealer I trust, American Hartford Gold. And you can do this. Get precious metals delivered to your door or place in a tax Advantage Gold IRA. They'll even help you roll over your existing IRA or 401 tax and penalty free with billions in precious metals delivered thousands of five star reviews and an A from the Better Business Bureau. You can trust American Hartford Gold as I do. Please call 866-326-5576 or text bill to 998-899. Again that's 866-326-5576, or text bill to 998-899.

A (15:01)

This is a real good story about Bronx and his dad Ryan. Real United Airlines customers.

B (15:06)

We were returning home and one of the flight attend he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Captain Andrew. I got to sit in the driver's seat. I grew up in an aviation family and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me of myself when I was that age.

A (15:19)

That's Andrew, a real United pilot.

D (15:21)

These small interactions can shape a kid's future.

E (15:24)

It felt like I was the captain.

B (15:26)

Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever. That's how good leads the way. Two, everybody who's poor and in a bad circumstance, and that includes undocumented migrants and I am, I can prove it. But the Catholic church a refuses to use the words undocumented, won't use it and number two, portrays this as an issue where the government is the bad guy, the US government is the bad guy. And I'll submit to you that the bishops are misguided because the government is trying to protect Americans from this massive wave that nobody has any control over. Do you see my point?

C (16:15)

I see what you're saying. I think I would say that the bishops and I worked for the bishops for a number of years. I worked for the Vatican for a number of years. I think what's really happening is that these religious leaders are responding to what their local communities are seeing across the country. They're Responding to two things. They're responding to that. The reality of these actions of ICE and immigrant enforcement and the raids that are really ugly, they're brutal. I mean, we're talking about moms being separated from families. We're talking about. There's been situations where school teachers have been ripped out of schools, where parents have been ripped out of cars, where their kids are left behind. Nobody wants to see that. That's not the way to.

B (16:56)

But that's not the rule. That is the acceptance.

C (17:01)

I think that they're responding to that, though. They're seeing. I mean, you've seen the images coming out of Chicago, of Los Angeles, you know, where we're deploying the Department of Homeland Security, but also the FBI and in some cases the National Guard and the military. Nobody wants to see this. It's not good. And in fact, it's turning off a lot of voters. A lot of people who supported Trump and said, yeah, we want a secure border. Yeah, we got to fix the immigration system. A lot of people are stepping back. He's losing in the Latino vote. So I think the bishops are responding to what they're seeing locally, but they're also responding to the Pope, Pope Leo. You know, he's been outspoken about this, especially in the last couple months, but that's his job.

B (17:37)

But I'd like to interview Pope Leo. We're working on it, but I don't think he's gonna do it. But I would say you're holding my first question. My first question after asking him for forgiveness would be, listen, every government, legitimate government, has an obligation to protect it's people. Yeah. And when you let 10 to 15 million unsupervised foreign nationals into a country, that's not protecting your people, your holiness, is it? I'd love to see how he answers that one. And they all fall back on the teacher in that school or the mom and. I got it. But there is a tremendous problem here fostered by our own government under Biden. I'll give you the last word.

F (18:33)

Yeah.

C (18:33)

I think the Holy Father would respond this way. I think he'd say, you're right. There's a place for borders, there's a place for governments managing immigration so that it's done in a way that's efficient and meets our national security needs and maybe even meets our economic needs. I think the Holy Father would probably agree with that. But he'd also say that when we lead with compassion, that when we honor the stranger, when we welcome the stranger, we'll be better off for it. Because it's the Christian thing to do. It's the right thing to do, but it's also the American thing to do. He's from America. He knows this is a country that's benefited from the contributions of migrants, that they're key to our economic resilience, our social resilience. They make us great as a country. And I think he'd remind us of that, that there's gotta be a better.

B (19:15)

Way, that compassion, there's gotta be a better way. You're right. But it isn't letting everybody in. And that is the impression that the Catholic Church is giving, not only the USA, but in Europe as well. Mr. Corporate, very good debate. We really appreciate you and thank you for coming on today. You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. All right. Podcast. Two million podcasts in America, and we don't do a podcast. So if you account nuts, then you have to go down one. All right. Many of them are irresponsible. They're just people spouting, saying whatever they want to say. They don't think there's any accountability. Well, there is now because a lawsuit has been filed in New York State by a man named Robert o'. Neill. Now, if you read my book, Killing the Killers, you know, Robert o' Neill is. He's a former Navy SEAL who is credited with killing Osama bin Laden in the raid on bin Laden's compound. May 2, 2011, Pakistan. Okay, we open Killing Killers. It is harrowing what happened in that raid. Robert o' Neill pulled the trigger and ended bin Laden's life. We checked it every way we could possibly check it. It's in the book. We believe it happened. Well, there's a podcast, two guys that say o' Neill's a fraud, he didn't kill him. Bin Laden. Now we've got to look at ONeills resume. Two silver stars, four bronze medals, joint service accommodation medal, three presidential unit citations, two Navy and Marine Corps Accommodation Medals. I mean, the guy was in the Navy 16 years. He's one of the most decorated officers, Chief Petty officer. And now these two are saying, nah, he's a fraud. So joining us now from New York City is Senior Chief Petty Officer Robert o', Neill, retired. Now, did I sum that up accurately? Did I miss anything or misstate anything?

D (21:36)

Oh, thank you for that, Mr. O'Reilly. It's good to be back with you. The only little thing is all four bronze stars have valor. One of the Navy Marine Corps commendations has valor. The Joint Service commendations has valor and silver Stars do not come with valor. It's just assumed gallantry against the enemy. No, that was good. And it's the case, too. It's just like you said, with millions of podcasts, people can say whatever they want and then there's really no accountability. And these guys have been coming after me for a solid two years now. And I've listened to it a bunch of times. I don't like hearing it. And I've heard stuff because this is a very high profile mission. I was actually involved with the most high profile missions to include rescuing the lone survivor, Marcus Luttrell. I was the lead jumper to rescue Richard Phillips from Somali pirates. And I was the guy that ended up shooting Osama bin Laden. And I've heard stuff, and I do, from other veterans, towards other veterans. I'm tired of the vet on vet hate, but when my college age daughter started calling me, having trouble sleeping at night and going to bed crying because their father's a fraud, everything he did was a lie. It starts to get to me. And these are the same girls that when I. One of my daughters was three. When I left to go after Osama bin Laden, I wasn't allowed to tell her or my family where I was going. I was pretty sure I wasn't coming back. I was saying goodbye to her for the last time, and she ran upstairs, got a hello Kitty carry on, put Mr. Elephant and a pillow in it, and said, take me on vacation when you get back. That's enough to live with right there. We did come back and we lived. And then, you know, 14 or however many years later to hear it's all fake, it's all made up, and I'm a fraud. There is a time to stand up to bullies in everyone's life, and this is just my time again to go find the bully and win.

B (23:05)

All right, what are you suing for?

D (23:09)

Well, I'm suing them for defamation because they've been.

B (23:12)

Defamation. They're defaming your character, calling you a liar, and you're suing them. Why do you think these guys are doing it? There are two of them, right? Brent Tucker and Tyler Hoover. Those are the two guys you're suing?

D (23:28)

Those are the two main guys. Brent Tucker in particular, he's a former operator at a tier one unit for the army, which is a stellar unit. I mean, it's almost surprising, too, that the unit is letting him be the face of the unit, but that's what they're doing. And I'm going after them because they're in Talks with people behind the scenes that are just telling them different stuff. They're basing it on an after actions report that we gave after the bin Laden raid. And there was a guy who was actually just on Sean Ryan's show last week. He was on the raid too. He based his book no Easy Day on the after action report. That isn't quite true, but he went on Sean Ryan show and admitted that he shot bin Laden after he's dead. So the two things that were left out that I purposely left out of the after action one, Amal bin Laden was shot before I got there. She got shot somehow and then other guys shot bin Laden after I had killed him. I left them out of that on purpose because a lot of stuff doesn't need to go, all right, but that'll.

B (24:17)

All be adjudicated in the court of law. What I'm trying to get at here is why do these guys want to do this to you? There's enough evidence that says what you did happened. You got guys in your unit, you got the commander. Because we checked all that out before we put it in killing the killers. Okay, so why would these guys want to go up against that? Is there a reason?

F (24:46)

Attention, podcast people. I'm Harry Cole and I'm invited you to something properly different, something urgent, something real. It's called Harry Cole Saves the West. If you're tired of limp commentary and a afraid to offend punditry, this is the show for you. We're taking sledgehammers to sacred cows and battling the maligned forces tearing apart the US and uk. From open borders to cultural collapse to economic chaos to the threats to national security, the values and freedoms of the west are under siege like never before. This is the show where American grit meets British backbone. We all defend faith, family, freedom, and the future of the west with bold, unapologetic truth telling. So if you're ready to push back, ready to stand tall, ready to laugh at the madness, then hit subscribe. Harry Cole Saves the West right now available wherever you get your podcasts. The fight back starts here. And yes, bring the popcorn.

G (25:39)

Hey, it's Sean Spicer reminding you to tune in to the Sean Spicer show every weeknight right here. You're not going to want to miss our analysis. Whether it's the media, politics, campaigns, the upcoming midterms, Supreme Court rulings, we've got it all covered for you. With the best guests in politics, the pundits, the pollsters, members of the House of Representatives, members of the Senate, candidates running for Both and key members of President Trump's administration. You're not going to want to miss it.

D (26:10)

Well, I mean, there's got to be a reason. It's got to be peppered with jealousy, and some of it could be post traumatic.

B (26:15)

So you don't know these guys. You never talk to them. Never met.

D (26:20)

Never met him. I was at my mom's house in Butte, Montana, and it came across one of my feeds where this guy Brent Tucker was saying, I know for a fact that Rob o' Neill did not kill bin Laden. And I even responded to him, which is a mistake because it gave him credit or it gave him some eyes on. And I just said, I think my first response was, dude, I don't even know you.

B (26:38)

Right.

D (26:40)

Without question. I know exactly what happened.

B (26:42)

This is New York State. It's going to take you years to get this into the courtroom and the lawyer fees and all that. You got a guy working pro duono on your behalf. Are you paying them? The lawyer?

D (26:52)

Yeah, I've hired a firm to help me out. David Schwartz is helping me out, and we've gone through a lot of research. I even got like, you probably talked to Admiral Bill McRaven, who was overall in charge to Barack Obama. I've got a letter that he wrote from him, and I had to tell him as well, I don't want to do this. I would appreciate a letter. And he obviously said, well, of course I'll help you. And I said, what do I owe you? And he said, you already did it.

B (27:16)

And that's.

D (27:16)

I mean, that's something about the nobility.

B (27:17)

Now you're going to win. It's just going to take forever. And then this is New York State. Okay. They designed. They designed the whole civil legal system to enrich the attorneys, to keep it going for years and years and years. That's what they do. So say at the end, you win. These guys don't have money to pay you off big time. The two podcasters, they don't have anything.

D (27:46)

Well, I mean, I don't. I don't. I don't think I'm gonna. I'm. I have the truth on my side, so I'm not worried. I don't think anybody wins. It's not like I want to do this.

B (27:54)

No. All right.

C (27:55)

But.

B (27:55)

But I'm going in the legal system. So there's going to be a jury trial unless these two guys settle. I don't know. Maybe you would settle with them. I don't know. But there's going to be a jury and they're going to say, no, this is all bull. And, you know, these guys attacked him and they were malicious in doing it. And it's a defamatory system. So they got to pay Robert o' Neill this much money, which they're not going to be able to pay. So you're, and correct me if I'm wrong, this just looks like you want a righteous action against what you believe is very wrong. That's what it looks like to me.

D (28:31)

Yeah, that's, that's very correct, Mr. O'Reilly. And it will also be a stand for the vet on vet. Hey, this is not, I'm not, I'm, I am the first veteran they've attacked, but they've then gone on to attack everybody else. And they're part of that bothers me, too, is they're really taking joy and watching them destroy.

B (28:47)

I don't think you're going to be taking a lot of joy, Robert, when they have to show up in New York and hire defense attorneys and everything else.

D (28:55)

I know that they're not going to.

B (28:57)

Be so joyful about that. I mean, you're putting a wood to them.

D (29:01)

I know. And, but you know what really made me decide that, too, is he got on his new podcast that he renamed as a Positive Thing. He did an hour and a half trashing me, and he said if I was lying about Rob o', Neill, he'd sue me. So here we are.

B (29:12)

Okay. All right. We're going to follow the case. We, of course, admire your service. We the story about your daughter is very troubling to me because I know that's true. And I know that people who are attacked in the public arena, their family gets crushed, and that alone is worth going after these people. So you keep us posted about what happens. Mr. O', Neill, thank you very much for everything you've done for this country. And we'll talk again soon. Okay?

D (29:44)

All an honor and thanks for having me, Mr. O'Reilly.

B (29:46)

All right. This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

C (29:53)

All right.

B (29:53)

EPSTEIN mania. Only one person in the House and the Senate voted to not release the Justice Department Data on Jeffrey Epstein. 1. And here's Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana. Apparently, he doesn't have cable tv. That's what he said on the radio. Or he's out in Bayou Tech somewhere they couldn't get back. I don't know. Now, if I were a congressman or senator, I would have voted to release the data because the American people clearly want all right. Most of the American public quoting the polls, think there's a big conspiracy. Government's covering up stuff. They believe whatever they want to believe, and that's what folks do. We live in an age of conspiracy theory and striven by social media. People make a lot of money doing it. And, you know, we don't do that here. All right, so now the data comes out. After President Trump signs this bill, which he will, Attorney General Pam Bonney has 30 days put it out, and she will. I'm not expecting anything major. I could be wrong. If there is, we will cover it fairly and clearly. What will we do? Okay. But I am expecting a lot of horror and a lot of things that are very, very wrong. Now last night on News Nation, which is the best. If you want news coverage, that's the best network. I'll be on tonight at 8pm Cuomo. It's not because I'm on there. I'm on air a couple of times a week. But they try to be fair. All right, so you got Chris Cuomo last night interviewing a lawyer for one of the victims, alleged victims. Very legitimate. Of course you're going to do that. The woman's name is Annie Farmer. Okay. And she's been around for a while. She made all kinds of accusations about Epstein and powerful people, but she didn't name the powerful people and all of this stuff. Okay? So if you were just watching this interview, you would say, boy, that poor woman, you know what she went through. And we need to get all the information to punish the people who harm that woman. If you're a decent person, that's what you're thinking listening to this interview with Chris Cuomo. But to his credit, Cuomo then puts on the next guest, Alan Dershowitz, who was accused, falsely, it looks like, of doing illegal things with Epstein. Okay. And who represented Epstein. Here's what Dershowitz said. Go. But I worry that if names are released of people who are accused without there being information released that might cast doubt on the credibility of the accusers, like this Farmer person. Your lawyer who just presented her case, never mentioned the fact that she said, I have a hard time with Jews. All the Jewish people I met are pedophiles. Do you believe a person like that? It would take you two minutes to destroy her on cross examination. She should not be believed. And that is the point. Unfettered information released to the public. The public has no blanking clue who's credible and who isn't, who's lying and who isn't. And then they form judgments, and then people get hurt. That's what I'VE been saying in the very beginning. So this is a tough, tough story. Now I'm going to back it up. Reuters poll very unfriendly to Donald Trump. Historically. Reuters asked everybody, okay, do you approve of Trump's handling of the Jeff d. Epstein files? Yes 20% no 59 this is when President Trump was not going to put it out. Unsure 21. Do you think the government is hiding Epstein's alleged client list? Yes 70% no 8 Unsure 22 I mean, the public is already formed its opinion about this based on nothing. Based on nothing. Okay, so I'm sitting here and I'm going, okay, we're in witch hunt land. Joining us now from Reading, California, a nice town in the northern part of the state. Joseph Tully, who is a criminal defense attorney who has appeared with me before, is an honest man in my assessment. And that's what we're looking for for all right, Councillor Number one. And the way I'm framing this is okay, I'm a senator or a congressperson, I'm going to want to vote yes on the release, but I am very, very uneasy about what may happen. Do you see it the same way?

E (35:05)

This episode is brought to you by Rakuten. The holidays are here and that means it's the most wonderful time of the year. To save with Rakuten, Use Rakuten to stack cash back at your favorite stor on top of holiday sales. That's savings on savings. With Rakuten, you can get cash back on gifts for everyone on your list, from toys for the kids to kitchen gear for the person who loves to cook to electronics for everyone. You can even save on something for yourself. Cash back is automatically added to your account as you shop and you can get paid with gift cards, PayPal or check or eligible American Express card members can choose to earn membership rewards points, join for free today and get a new member bonus after minimum qualifying purchases. Just go to Rakuten, download the app or install the browser extension. Terms and conditions apply.

A (35:53)

We all love a legendary comeback and Degree Original Cool Rush is back and better than ever. Cool Rush isn't just a scent. It's a movement, a fan favorite that delivers bold, fresh vibes and all day sweat protection. Whether you have a man that spends hours in the gym, heads into the office early, or is just trying to stay fresh on a long day, Cool Rush has their back. Head to your local Walmart or Target and grab Degree Cool Rush, the fan favorite scent from the world's number one antiperspirant brand.

G (36:24)

I sure I do have concerns because as Mark Twain said something to the effect of, you know, a lie will go around the world, you know, much quicker than the truth can put his pants on in the morning. And we have a system of justice, of innocent until proven guilty, and that must always be adhered to. But I share, do share your concern, that with the release of these files, that unchecked, unfettered information can go to the public. They will draw the worst conclusions and kind of run with it, and we'll have sort of guilt by association or guilt within the.

B (37:04)

So that's a fact. That's a fact that's going to happen. And then the people who are in business to destroy Trump will cherry pick what they want. And the people who are in business to destroy the Democrats or Bill Clinton or wherever it may be will cherry pick what they want. We've already seen that. Now, when the House Oversight Committee released some of the documents, we had a bunch of emails by Jeffrey Epstein himself. Who cares? That's hearsay. The man is in prison, all right? The man has been convicted, and what he says after the fact, it doesn't matter. Yet the press is reporting this as gospel truth. I'm sitting there stunned, cares what this thug, this low live, says. It doesn't matter. It's hearsay. Could be introduced in any court proceeding. Correct?

G (37:59)

Correct, yes. I mean, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but in looking through that from a legal perspective, I didn't see anything that, if from Donald Trump's perspective, that was any kind of, you know, actual threat against him.

B (38:18)

Factually, you're correct, but that's not what the press did. Jeffrey Epstein says I can destroy him. That's what the press did. You saw it?

G (38:29)

Sure, yes. While ignoring the fact that you had two Americans casually talking about blackmailing or possibly blackmailing a presidential candidate, they focused on the. His statements, which really didn't amount to any sort of accusation against Donald Trump.

B (38:51)

No, it was a general statement. So why do you believe that what our discussion is based on now has been suppressed? There is not a skepticism being shown by the national media about this information at all. It's gleeful. Let me run and exploit this. Why do you think that's happening?

G (39:17)

So I do think that the water has built up behind the dam in terms of, you know, public disclosure and transparency. I think the American system is based on a transparency of government, more so than any other country in the history of the world. With the Epstein files, I think it's pretty clear that there's been a withholding of evidence and the public got very, very fed up and sort of the pendulum swung to one side. Release it. Release it now. We're tired of it. We're frustrated. We've been waiting too long. And that I think is contributing to the public sentiment where they're very, very upset that the disclosure has not happened.

B (40:00)

And now it is released. When you say, and now I'm in a court of law with you. Well, there's evidence that there's a cover up. What is that evidence, in your opinion?

G (40:17)

I don't see evidence of a cover up. I see evidence of possibly delayed disclosure right now. Yeah. There's no evidence that evidence has been destroyed, which would be a cover up.

B (40:30)

Okay. Or, or suppressed. You know, so if the evidence is suppressed and it looks like there might be evidence in the assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, the FBI might have suppressed evidence. And we're going to do that story tomorrow because we're a responsible news agency here. I have to check it. I can't take it out of the New York Post. I check it myself because it's a serious concern. The FBI suppressed evidence about the shooter. Then, you know, got to look at it. But in this case, what I'm seeing is I wrote a book called Killing the Witches and the hysteria that all those hundreds of years ago in Massachusetts led to the death like 20 human beings. Exactly the same hysteria is in play right now here in America. Last word.

G (41:34)

I would agree with you. I think that anytime you give a group of people power that is unchecked, you will end up with injustice. It happened during the Salem witch trials. We had young girls who would show up to court and faint and would go into convulsions while pointing the finger, which we know were false. That, you know, there were witches that were, you know, casting magic spells over them. So in, in some degree I see the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. We do need a balanced approach. We do need reasonable review of the evidence.

B (42:09)

But that's not going to happen in the US Media. There's no way that's ever going to happen. Council, thanks very much. We really appreciate your expertise. Thanks for coming on. 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.

A (42:40)

Ordinary checking. A $300 head start on checking. Ordinary savings. High yield savings that grow your mortgage. A mortgage with a rate that drops when the market does. Why settle for With Oregon State Credit Union you get all sorts of welcome to human to human banking. Oregon State Credit Union insured by NCUA equal housing lender $25 minimum balance required, subject to change terms and conditions.