Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News: Best Of The Week, September 21 - September 24

Episode Date: September 27, 2020

Highlights from BillOReilly.com’s No Spin News. Watch the No Spin News weeknights - become a BillOReilly.com Premium Member to watch with added perks – including a free O’Reilly book. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Six weeks from today, we'll be voting for president, a most important election of my lifetime. We've defined that over the past few weeks, and we are going to have the best election coverage in the country right here. So if you don't believe me, you watch. and I want you to spread the word, and we're going to talk about that in a final thought of the day. So let's do an update on the Supreme Court situation, which is dominating the news headlines right now. President Trump says he'll make his announcement on Saturday. It'll probably leak out. Before then, the woman, I believe, who is going to be selected unless there's some last-minute snafu,

is the woman who visited the White House yesterday. And her name is Amy Coney Barrett. So she used to teach law at the University of Notre Dame, a very experienced jurist. The most important thing you can do to learn about Ms. Jared is to Google when Senator Diane Feinstein interviewed her and listened to the anti-Catholic posture of Senator Feinstein. It's really shocking and how Judge Barrett handled that. So it doesn't matter what I say. I want you to see it and hear it with your own eyes.

So just Google, Judge Barrett, Senator Feinstein, bang, it'll come up and you'll watch it. I mean, that's the beauty of these crazy machines. So Mitt Romney now says he'll support moving the nomination ahead. That was a senator, the Republicans needed, as Murkowski and Collins will not support. Murkowski is not a Republican. I did an interview with an Anchorage radio station today in promoting Killing Crazy Horse. And Murkowski, and I said, look, you guys have a Republican center, but she's not a Republican.

And she despises President Trump. So it's up to you guys to keep her there or get her out of there, but she's not a Republican. And then Susan Collins, who is a Republican, but a very liberal one, fighting for her life in Maine. and she's not going to do anything that helps Donald Trump. So the vote will take place. There are 51 Republican votes almost assured, which is enough to confirm Judge Barrett as a new justice in the Supreme Court.

Now, it's no lock because Schumer and Pelosi are going to try everything to derail this, and so will the corporate media. So, you know, you can't say it's going to be smooth, even though President Trump and Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader want the vote. It's not assured. So we're going to, we're all over that. But right now, it looks like Amy Coney Barrett will be the nominee, and that vote will take place before November 3rd.

That's what it looks like today. Tomorrow could be a totally different story. Okay, so the debate one week from tonight, pressures on Joe Biden. Most people have made up their mind about Donald Trump, one way or the other, but there's a lot of doubt about Mr. Biden's efficiency. By that I mean, he makes so many mistakes speaking that there are people worried about his mental acuity, and I am one of them. But unlike others, I do not say he has dementia or he has this or he has that. That would be irresponsible of me to say. Because I don't know.

I'm not a doctor. I'm not an expert in that. I did write a book called Killing Reagan. And I did document that after Ronald Reagan was shot, almost killed shortly after he was inaugurated. His mental acuity declined drastically. Now, the Reagan administration kept that from the American people, very effective. Nobody knew, but there were times when Ronald Reagan could not do his job. He made a miraculous recovery mentally, and we document that. It was, doctors couldn't believe it. But at the end of his

term, he had completely recovered from the near-death experience. Joe Biden, I don't know what's going on, but when a guy says that there are 200 million COVID deaths in the USA, when he says that hundreds of thousands of military people have contracted COVID, this is all public. You can see it. You've got to say, what the deuce is he talking about? So in the debate, the eyes are on Joe Biden. Is he going to be able to be cogent in his responses? Now, most people say, is he going to be able to answer the questions? Well, neither candidate is going to answer the questions? Let me explain. So Chris Wallace is the the interrogator. Wallace doesn't like Trump. There's no use for him. I don't know how he feels

about Biden, but he's going to ask both men tough questions. Wallace will do that because it's a legacy play for Chris. I mean, he's in the shadow of his father, the greatest broadcast journalist who's ever lived, Mike Wallace. And he has to, on this stage, worldwide stage, be tough on both candidates. So worry about that. And he's not going to leak the questions. He's not going to do anything like that. The problem is that each candidate has two minutes to answer the question, uninterrupted. So it's not like me interviewing somebody, where if they don't answer a question, I said, wait a minute, you pinhead, you're not answering their question. I just cut them off. That's part of my charm, as you all know. Wiles can't do that. So he can ask Trump, what about COVID,

what, you did this, you did that, and Trump can go, you know what, yeah, blah, blah, blah, for two minutes, filibuster. And Biden could do the same thing. Now, I have to answer the question. And then this is really interesting. So after the two-minute initial time they get to speak, all right, then there is a, quote, further discussion guided by the moderator. What does that mean? What does that mean? Now, you assume if the question isn't answered, that Wallace should follow up and go, hey, what are you doing? I asked you this and you didn't even come close. All right. Maybe, but further discussion guided by the moderator, I don't know what that means. So it's a 90-minute debate, no commercials, six segments.

All right, so while so divide it up into COVID, the economy, foreign affairs, you know the drill. All right, social justice, whatever it may be. But again, direct questions in this format do not have to be. do not have to be answered because Gwales can't do anything about it until after the fact. Then he could but he's got to be careful. So I don't expect either candidate

to answer to our question, especially if they're top. So it's 9-10.30, a week from tonight. It's at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Anything else you need to know? A commission on presidential debate sponsored it. I don't even know what that is. But, you know. So there you go. All right. So what's at stake here? This is the most important night one week from tonight in the entire campaign because if Biden falters, Trump wins the

election. If Biden holds his own, Biden may very well win. If Biden wins, the nation is in trouble. And I've told you that up front because Joe Biden is not going to stand up to the radical forces. He's just not. Now, who are the radical forces? Well, let's let CNN commentator Don Lemon tell you exactly what the radical left wants. Go. We're going to have to blow up the entire system. And you know what we're going to have to do? You know what we're going to, yes, what you're going to do? Honestly, from what your closing argument is, you're going to have to get rid of the electoral college because the people i don't see it because the minority in this country decides who the judges are and they decide who the president is is that you need a constitutional amendment to do that and if democrats

if joe biden wins democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and they can get it passed well you need two thirds vote in the congress in three quarters of the state legislatures they may be able to do that they won't be able to do that but they will do everything they can to disrupt the system that is in place now they can go in the Supreme Court from nine judges to 15, 32, 112 if the Democrats carry the Senate. So the Democrats have the presidency in both houses, the Supreme Court, you can wave it goodbye.

They can try to get Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico has new states. They're by adding four senators to the Democratic precinct. They'll try, and they'll try to abolish the electoral college. They won't do that. It won't be able to do that. But they can stack the court. to court and try to get two new states.

Now, all this will be challenged. All right, it's not going to be easy for them to do it. But Lemon is an honest guy. He's telling you, we've got to blow the system up. This system, we don't like this at all. And that's what the progressive left wants. And they have a perfect candidate in Joe Biden because he comes across to some voters is a moderate guy, not a crazy left guy.

And he's not a crazy left guy. But he is not in a position to stand up to them. And the corporate media, which controls 90% of the news flow, where do you see the Supreme Court battle? New York Times, Washington Post, Disney, Comcast, Viacom, they're going to support the far left. They want to blow the system up. He must have gotten a thousand letters saying,

why? Why would they want to blow the system up when they're making billions of dollars? because at this point, their ideology overrides that. All right, Don Lemon is a radical leftist. He couldn't be, 10 years ago, he would have never said that, what he just said last night. Ten years ago, that would have been unheard of. But AT&T, which owns CNN, apparently is fine with this.

Okay. The Trump administration is fighting back against this far-left craziness, and the latest is that they've designated three cities, New York, Portland, Seattle, as places that do not deserve federal aid, okay, because they, quote, failed to control protesters and defunding the police. So they failed to control protesters and are defunding police. Therefore, the federal government said, we're not going to give you as much money as you got. New York City gets $7 billion, with a B, every year in federal aid.

That means you live in in North Dakota, Arizona, Missouri, your tax dollars coming in here. All right, Portland gets $3.7, I'm sorry. New York City gets $7 billion in federal aid, all right? Portland gets $49 million. Seattle gets $85 million. So the Trump administration and the Justice Department is not to find how much they're going to be fined or punished, but that's how much they get. Now, most of this is bluster,

but they will. The Justice Department can cut off some block grants in the policing area. If Trump's re-elected, that'll probably happen. If he's not by, I don't never do it. Now, Donald Trump is angry with New York because the mayor painted a Black Lives Matter mural in front of the Trump Tower.

All right, there it is. Now, Chicago is far worse than New York as far as violence and protesters are concerned, but Chicago's not on the list, because Chicago allowed federal authorities in to try to help, whereas New York and Portland and Seattle are not. So Trump's getting a little of this, little stick in there. Just for your information, shootings are up year to year, August, New York City, 166%. There are absolute anarchy on the streets of New York City. murders are up 47%. So the Justice Department is not wrong.

Violence is out of control. In Chicago, in Seattle, in Portland, and in New York City, and in St. Louis, and in Baltimore, and in Atlanta, and on and on and on and on. All right, let's bring in Dr. Adam Carrington. Now, I asked for him specifically. He teaches at Hillsdale College in Michigan,

but he is at Princeton, New Jersey, where it's coming to us today, because he's writing a book, and he's part of the James Madison and program, an American ideals and institutions, very prestigious program. All right, doctor. So, first of all, I set the debate up. Was I fair in my setup?

I think so. I think that especially with Joe Biden, the big question is going to be, does he seem to have it, given the gaffs that he's had on the trail, given a number of the other problems he's had in past campaigns, this is the third. time he's run for president. So is he going to be sharp? Does he look presidential? Is he able to trade barbs with President Trump? I think that's going to be the big part. I think if there is something that President Trump needs to do, it's build off what the convention, the GOP convention really tried to push of that this is not only a tough president, but one that has empathy for

people's struggles over the last few months. That's something that was really pushed to get suburban votes. I think if he can reinforce that, that would be helpful to him. Okay. Now, you have the moderator. See, I don't believe these debates mean much because you're not going to learn anything. I don't expect to learn anything at the debates. I expect the candidates to repeat over and over and over again what they've already said. I'd be stunned if there's something new. How about you? Are you expecting to learn anything, doctor? not so much on the substance of where each candidate stands or what they say they would do i think it really is going to be a performance issue to some degree you can't hide your ability to

in that forum be articulate in that forum trade barbs with uh the other candidate or the moderator of something unexpected comes up so that's the only thing i think we could really possibly get out of this that could be new. If something gets thrown at them that they haven't prepared for or if they get pushed by the other candidate, I think that's where you might see some difference. But no, I don't in the main expect any complete anything that's going to completely change the dynamics of what we know about the two men. They've both been in the public limelight for decades. They're both very well-known entities. This is going to be a marginal difference, even though marginal, as you point out could make a big deal given the race being yeah absolutely so it's style over substance

um and i'm a next uh monday going to give you uh i'm just talking to my audience now doctor i'm sorry i'm going to give everybody a look at the what the style has to be um because joe biden he is under pressure and the the key to this debate is which candidate is can rattle the other candidate. And remember, we saw what Donald Trump did to Jeb Bush and to Marco Rubio and to John Kasich and to Ted Cruz. So we'll see if the president still has that in him, because that was pretty vicious. Now, let's go back to the Kennedy Nixon debate in 1960, which is the most famous presidential debate of all time. In that debate, Nixon won among people listening to it on the radio, and Kennedy won, and this is according to polling, among those who saw it on TV because Nixon was sweating and looked tense, where Kennedy looked vibrant, young, and relaxed.

So that's what you're really talking about here, correct? Yes, that presentation matters, and that really brought that question home, because there was also some questions people don't remember about Kennedy's age. Did he, could he rise to the level of seeming presidential, as they call it? And everyone knew Nixon knew his stuff. He had been vice president. You couldn't out policy Nixon. But the idea of looking like the man that you want to be the leader of the free world. world, the rhetorical and at least a picture of the head of state of the United States,

Kennedy was able to pass that eye test, as they often call it, in a way that Nixon struggled to in the, as far as just the way he carried himself. And that's become a common theme ever since debates started to become a normal thing, which they did in 1976, that idea of what they sometimes call optics. Now, in the 76 debate, Carter versus Ford, Ford told the country that Poland was not under the thumb of the Soviet Union, which was absurd. And that, I think, lost the election for Gerald Ford. He made that kind of a huge mistake. So the two candidates today, if they were to make a mistake, like Biden made over the weekend, by saying there were 200 million deaths from COVID, in the USA when there's only 330 million people my line today on the radio doctor was well at least

traffic's not going to be that bad anymore come on i mean it's just insane if biden does that again i think trump will win but if you make a major gaffe particularly if it's on the trump side um the press is just going to demolish you correct yes and there's a difference between the campaign trail in a debate because most people, most regular Americans aren't paying that much attention to the campaign speeches. It's the debates

that, and I think you were right to say the first debate's going to matter the most, where people are turning in live. They're going to see it with their own eyes. And even if they then hear news reports later, it's going to start with what they actually watch themselves. And a gaffe

is going to make a much bigger difference. And you're exactly right with Ford. Ford was actually trying to just say the Soviets hadn't broken the spirit of the people of Eastern Europe. But you're right. He didn't say it that way. And it really, I think, hurt his comeback against Carter. He had been down a lot. He had closed the gap.

And those gaps can make a big difference in perception. Now, here's the only exception to the rule. The first debate between Mondale and Reagan in 1984, Mondale cleaned his clock. Reagan looked befuddled out there. there. Now, Reagan was the incumbent and had a record and the economy was on the ascent. But Mondale came in and heard him. And then Reagan hired Roger Ailes, the founder of the Fox News channel, to come in and turn it around, which Reagan did with humor, all right, and a much more firm grasp with the themes that he wanted. But this time around, I think you're absolutely

right, doctor. I think the first debate, which is going to be the most widely watched debate in history, all of the world, will define who wins this election. And I would go back to just reinforce what you said about 1984,

that Reagan had to sort of relearn what he had learned in 1980, which gaffs are a bad thing, but the other thing is you need to be memorable and personable. You can't get up there like Carter did in 80, like Mondale did in later debates, like Al Gore did in 2000, and spit off a lot of policy positions. You need to put it in terms that good average Americans

understand. And Reagan knew that in 80 when he said, there you go again to Carter, when he said, are you better off than you were four years ago? And he relearned that in 1984 after that first debate. And I think that's another thing to keep in mind is it's not, the American people are looking for someone that can talk to them as they understand their country, as they are understanding the issues. And that's something I think that separates the really effective debaters from the not in the course of presidential debate history. And Bill Clinton did exactly what you said when he debated President Bush the elder the first time around. He was much more personable, again, younger, more energetic. Nobody remembers even what the issues were, except for

the economy, because Bush had raised taxes when he said he wouldn't, and that was pretty much a death now for him in a soft economy. All right, let's sum it up by saying that Donald Trump is always a wild card. Now, his fervent supporters don't care. It's part of the Trump persona, bomb thrower, you know, this is who he is. He's after the swamp and all that. But right now, that's not enough. And I believe this to be true, that Donald Trump needs to persuade some people who don't hate him, but they're a little dubious about him.

What would be your advice to Trump on those persuadable people? I think that you can look presidential at the same time, be a full. fighter. And that line is, are you someone that looks in your fierceness and you're fighting in command? Are you in command of yourself? Are you in command of your office? Or do you look like you're struggling to control your own impulses? And I think a President Trump at his best would be someone who is showing that fierceness, but a controlled fierceness. That's what Americans I think would want, persuadable Americans would go for. And I think that's something that he's capable of and we'll have to see if he's able to show it on debate night.

All right. So you wouldn't mention Morning Joe in the debate, correct? Yes, there might be, as some of the left called, triggers. Yeah, stay away from the small ball. All right, doctor, a pleasure to speak with you. Thanks for helping us out. I hope we can talk again. I'd love that.

Thank you. Okay. Our President Trump went to pay his respects to Justice Ginsburg today, lying in state at the Supreme Court. by people who were there. I can't imagine Barack Obama being booed by conservatives. Maybe he would have been, I don't know, but Barack Obama going to a funeral, paying his respects. I can't imagine that would happen, but the far left, they have no rules. And I was happy the president went. I heard a commentator say he shouldn't have gone. I think that would

have been wrong. I think the President of the United States did the right thing by going and paying his respects to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not much more to that. All right, mail-in voting. Now, this is a very, very interesting story, and it encompasses a whole bunch of stuff. So yesterday you heard that there was a question to Donald Trump, are you going to leave office if you lose? And then Trump says, well, we'll see.

Okay. So I'm doing a lot of interviews for killing crazy horse, and that's the lead question to me all day today. Oh, wow, wow. And I'm going, look, obviously you guys have not read the United States of Trump. I'm saying this to the interviewers of me. Because I explain why the president throws hand grenade after hand grenade after hand grenade into the press. So he knows that he's going to leave office if he loses.

He knows that. He's not going to stay there after inauguration day. That's our system. He's not going to defy it because then he'd be forcibly removed. Okay, that's what would happen to him. And does he want that on his legacy resume? I don't think so. But by saying, well, we'll see what happens.

He does two things. He casts aspersions, word of the day, on the mail-in-balloting system, which he thinks is corrupt, and it could very well be. And he dominates the news cycle for 48 hours. Trump, jump, jump, jump, jump, jump, jump, jump. That's what he did four years ago. dominated the news cycle and he believes that's why he won

because it was all about Trump and that's what he's doing now throw that an grenade in there oh well we'll see what happens and of course Mitch McConnell comes out and says oh come on he's going to leave if he loses

and he will all right so the president despises the mail in voting and let me give you a fair assessment of it Two times of mail-in votes, all right, there's the absentee valid. Now, what's that? If you cannot get to the polling place, if you are traveling, if you are ill, if there is some

cataclysmouth thing that you have to deal with, you request an absentee ballot, and it's sent to you, you fill it out, and you send it back. Nothing wrong with that. That has been in play forever. Mail-in voting is different. That's when the states say, you have an office. You can go to the polling place in person or we'll send you a ballot and you don't have to have a valid reason and just ask for it. And in some cases like Nevada, we're sending ballots to everybody.

Everybody. Now, once the ballot gets to a person, many things can happen to it, right? If you go to the polling place, nothing can happen. You go in, you pull the lever, it's automatically tabulated. automatically tabulated, you go home. It's almost impossible to commit fraud. Mail-in ballot, there are people who can't speak English, don't know what the ballot is, can't fill it out,

and believe me, there will be people around to help them fill out that ballot. There'll be people with dementia. There'll be people who are dead, but the ballot arrives at a certain address, and it will be filled out by someone else. That will happen. That has happened many, many times in the past.

You cannot regulate mail in ballots. You can't. And not only that, but now we have absolute chaos after election day. So 27 states are allowing mail in ballots. And a lot of them say, well, it's COVID. Ah, baloney. Okay? I mean, you go to the bowling place, you stand in a line, but you're space six and you got the mask. I don't give me any of this COVID business.

Okay. So Alaska, and this is a Republican state, you can vote by mail, and the ballot will be counted 10 days after November 3rd. So if you, 10 days late, we'll count it later. has to be postmarked before or on election day. California 17 days has to be postmarked. But the postmark, you know, who's looking? Who's looking for the postmark? Who? Maryland, 10 days.

Michigan, 14 days. North Carolina, nine days. And North Carolina already have a do-over election because the mail-ins were so chaotic in North Carolina. it's already happened. Ohio, 10 days, Wisconsin, six days. Those are all, except for Alaska and California, Maryland, no. But they're all, the other last ones, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin, they're close.

So Trump's right. He, the potential for fraud and corruption is, we've already seen Broward County, Florida, already gone through Gore Bush. So, you know, he's sitting there going, and Democrats in the big cities are expert at this. Expert at it. Everybody knows that. Republicans do with two, but again, not at the same extent.

All right, so I ask my staff, and I have to give my staff a compliment now. I've worked them pretty hard the last few weeks because we have to have the best information and the most forward-looking information. So what about around the world? What about around the world? Mail and voting, okay? So we went to the Crime Prevention Research Center because voting fraud is a crime.

Here's what they come back with. Japan limited mail and voting. You have to get a special certificate verifying why you can't go to the poll. So somebody comes and interviews you. All right. Poland, same thing. Japan and Poland can't just mail and vote. France banned mail and voting in 1975 because of massive fraud. Okay. And it's still, they made an exception this year because of COVID, but it's still banned. Brazil and Russia completely banned mail and voting. In Russia, it's because Putin wants to know who's voting against him. So as soon as you vote at Moscow or St. Petersburg or Vladivostok, the Russian guys look at it and said, hey, he voted against Putin, and he can't even go on a list. That's the way Putin runs his operation over there.

Okay, Mexico, no, no mail in voting, okay, unless you live abroad. Mexico don't want to hear it. And not only that, when you go to the Mexico poll, you've got to have an ID, or they won't let you vote. 63% of the 27 countries in the European Union ban mail-in-boating. Again, that comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center. Now, I ask you, humbly, will you get that information on any other news source in this country? The answer is no.

You will not. And if you do, please let me know. If I'm wrong, please tell me. Bill at Bill O'Reilly.com, bill at bill o'Reilly.com. You will not get that information that I just gave you. Anywhere else, you'll get propaganda. Because the left-wing press doesn't want you to know the truth. That most countries know it's fraud.

Don't do it. But yet here, 14 days after, ah, yeah, okay. All right. So we have Sarah Huckabee Sanders on deck. She's going to come in and talk about her big bestseller. But before she does so, I want to remind you of what Ms. Sanders went through as the spokesperson for President Trump. Go. Sarah Sanders is not the disease.

She's a symptom of this wasting disease and just a mouthpiece for depravity. Sarah Huckabee Sanders looks are the best thing about. She has shiny hair and pretty eyes and a lovely complexion, but on the inside, hideous as a pinworm and anus. I actually really like Sarah. I think she's very resourceful. Like she burns facts, and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies. So that's disgraceful.

I think every fair-minded America, and we'd know all three of the three of the kids. I would know all three of those people should be disqualified, canceled. All right? I wouldn't do that, by the way. I would not. I don't call for a banishment on them. I despise them. I think all three of them, Bob Garfield, Samantha Bee, and Michelle Wolfe are despicable human beings.

And to say that, you know, as Ms. Sanders was sitting on the dais, Miss Wolfe. But the best revenge is that Michelle Wolfe ruined her career by Sam. that so joining us now is the aforementioned Sarah Huckabee Sanders from Little Rock Arkansas her book is speaking for myself big bestseller I read the book it's very interesting full disclosure before we get to Sarah I did recommend her to my publisher McMillan which eventually did publish the book under the St. Martin's imprint so I was involved with getting that book or at least getting some money to the Sanders family in Arkansas. Not that I want to gloat, but I want everybody to know that I did

have a little bit of something to do with this. So Sarah, when you were working at the White House and you heard these personal attacks on yourself, you're a human being, all right, a mom, a wife. How angry did you get? I mean, certainly, I don't think there's anybody that likes to hear those types of things said about them. For me, personally, we went into the White House fully prepared to defend our positions, defend the president's agenda. But I think most of us were very surprised by how aggressive the attacks were. And not from nobodies. These were from mainstream. In some cases, household names, media figures on main anchors at stations, attacking us, not for an agenda, not for our policy, but attacking us personally.

And that was something that was very surprising to me. You know, definitely didn't like it. But in many ways, it emboldened us to fight back, stay strong, and keep going, and call out their hypocrisy even more. Now, on page 110 of your book, you do address the wolf situation, which was unique because you weren't watching it on TV. you were sitting a few feet away from her in a Washington ballroom at the correspondence dinner. And you, I took away from the passage that you read about this, that you were emotionally upset that evening.

And you discussed it with your husband who was sitting in the room as well. Did you talk to Ms. Wolfe at all because you were very close to her about what she did? not after the fact we greeted each other briefly just before we went on to the stage but after it was over I was sort of swarmed in their defense by several members of the media who apologized for her but also by my friends and fellow co-workers at the White House to kind of you know check on and say like don't worry about this let's fight back and you know I'm glad you there and set strong and held your head high as you should have in that moment. So she and I never spoke after that moment and I don't think we ever will. I have no reason to talk to her at

this point. I think we've had enough exchange for one lifetime. All right. And as I said, her career is nowhere and it never be anywhere. So she actually hurt herself by doing that. But if I were there, I would have taken the little bread roll and kind of right, bounce her right up But I'm immature, and I don't advise anybody to do that. Now, your book is fairly positive to Donald Trump. No cheap shots, no regrets. You still believe in the man. Were you surprised when John Bolton, for example, turned on the president, wrote a book that was very, very negative. Were you surprised? Not really, because that's who John was in the White House. He was always running his own operation, his own agenda, and we get very angry when it wasn't his agenda

getting carried out on more than one occasion. He came into my office and wanted me to put out a statement that I knew was contrary to what I'd heard the president say on a particular matter only hours or days before. And that was a regular for him. So I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I'm not. But I'm certainly disappointed that somebody would take a role like his. I think that it absolutely puts our country and our national security in jeopardy when he writes a book like he does and betrays the trust of the president and the rest of his coworkers by putting that type of information. And in many cases, false information out into the public. So you do see it as a betrayal, as a Judas move. Absolutely.

And I'm glad that they're looking into whether or not some of the information he used. used in his book was classified. I went through a lengthy process in order to get my book cleared by the White House and make sure it didn't contain any classified information. My understanding, his book was never cleared for publication. And so I definitely think it's a good thing they're looking at that. His role, and I think he has hurt that role for any person moving forward by politicizing it and by putting that information out there. If he had felt so strongly that, that the president was a danger. Why did he stay for so long?

Why didn't he speak out sooner? I think we know why he wanted to make money. He wanted to sell a book, and that's exactly what he's done. And I think it's disgraceful to do what he has done throughout this process. Did you read the Woodward book? I did not.

And you know what? I didn't have to because he spent, obviously everybody wants to talk about the number of hours he spent talking to Woodward. I spent almost every day with the president for two and a half years. So I didn't need to read the Woodward book. But I just said, yeah, I asked you that question because I have a better question coming up, but I wanted to establish I haven't read it. So in the book, you got former Secretary of State

Tillerson, former Secretary of Defense Mattis, and former Defense, National Defense Chief Coates, all talked to Woodward. They weren't quoted, but they obviously talked to him, because their narratives are the first half of the book. All of them basically, criticize the president as essentially being immature and not able to decision make at the level of president should be. If you wanted to just do a whole estimation of the three of them, that's what they told Woodward, and Woodward spends about 120 pages on that. Are you surprised that all three of those men took that posture? A little bit more so, not by all certainly I think a couple of them is to be expected. But again, I think it is problematic to have

people that are that intimately involved. If you feel that way, then why did you participate and stay in that administration for so long? Why didn't you speak out? And why do so in such a cowardly way? If you have a real problem, talk about it publicly or talk about it directly to the president in the moment. Don't wait until later just before an election to go out and put your voice into a book, but not really put your name on it. I have a problem with people who leak anonymously. I put my name on the record when I'm putting a statement out, especially if it's as charged as some of the statements that these individuals are making. Of the three, Tillerson, Mathis, and Coates, did you have any problem with those

three. Did you respect them at the time? I had a good relationship with Secretary Mattis. My back and forth with him was in a different capacity, obviously, than between him and the president. Secretary Tillerson, I did not think was a good fit for the president from a very early point that was just never going to be a relationship that was to the benefit of the administration. And so, Director Coates, I didn't spend as much time. with him in and out because most of what he does is not a public facing role. And so my interactions with him were a little bit more limited, but personally got along with him fine.

But again, I don't love the way the aftermath has worked out and the role that they've chosen to play. Okay. Final thought of the day is this. I said at the beginning of the broadcast, you will not get better election coverage in the next six weeks than right here. All right. If you, If you see anything that we're doing that you feel can be any approved or that offends you, please let me know, bill at bill o'Reilly.com, bill at bill o'Reilly.com. Okay. Now, I want you to spread the word.

This is the most important election of our lifetimes. You've got to get people focused on the truth and they'll find it here. All right? So we got the first TV, we got all vehicles there, we got Bill O'Reilly.com, got to alert the people that you care about to come here and watch. Wait do you see what we do. We're going to be live after the debate a week from tonight. I'm going to be live.

I'm going to pop up and I'll tell you exactly what happened. You saw it, but there's a lot of inside stuff you may not know. I will be here for you. We'll see you soon.