Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - February 3, 2024

Episode Date: February 3, 2024

Listen to this week's No Spin News interview with The Heritage Foundation's Charles "Cully" Stimson, Podcast host and Newsweek senior editor-at-large Josh Hammer, and Author Charlie Spiering. We also visit the No Spin News archives and Bill's conversation with Colorado Congressman Ken Buck. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Fannie Willis, the DA in Fulton County, Georgia, Atlanta, going after Trump and 19 others for interfering with the Georgia vote. Fannie hires a boyfriend, all right, who has no experience doing anything to help bring down Trump, convict Trump. All right, Fannie and a boyfriend go all over the place on vacation. using state funds, paid to the boyfriend by Fannie. So now there is Georgia State Senate voted to approve an investigation into Fannie. That's underway. 30 to 19 was a Senate vote.

And there is another investigation to impeach Fannie. Charlese Byrd, a Georgia State Republican in the House. So Fannie's in trouble. And I think this case is going to get thrown out against Trump. But I could be wrong on that, so I wanted a guess. He really knows everything about it. And joining us now from Washington is Charles Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow for the Heritage Foundation.

All right, the setup for Fannie, did I mean? fanny did i miss anything no you didn't miss anything bill all right so she hires a boyfriend pays the boyfriend an astronomical amount of money boyfriend's not qualified to do to work uh the thing that i didn't say was that the boyfriend goes to the white house twice on the dime of the georgia taxpayer do you know why he went to the white house i don't know why he didn't he went to the white house and i think there are some other really fundamental and basic problems with what happened. And this has zero to do with the underlying nature of the charges.

She got COVID money from the county to clear up the COVID backlog of cases, yet she used that money not to do that, but to hire her lover. Secondly, she needed approval from the county to hire a special prosecutor. She didn't get it, yet she hired her lover. Three, her lover, Nathan Wade, who's never tried a RICO case, so he's not qualified, didn't get sworn in before he indicted everybody. So now you have a civilian indicting people who wasn't even sworn in as a special prosecutor. You know about the amorous activities. Whether the money she paid him, which could be up to a million dollars, was actually used for the travel, is somewhat irrelevant.

Because the standard here, Bill, which is you talked about in your setup, is the appearance of value. impropriety. And here, it stinks to high heaven. And so if she gets kicked off the case by the judge on the 15th of February, which I think she should, if she should, she should recuse herself now, by the way, but if she doesn't do the right thing and the judge recuses her, then it goes to another county in Georgia and they take a fresh look at all the underlying charges, and then it's game starts over. Who decides what county, because there are liberal counties in Georgia, Savannah, and there are conservative counties in Georgia. So who decides

that? Well, I'm not a Georgia barred lawyer. I'm only California and Maryland, so I don't know if the judge has discretion to pick the county or whether the state attorney general would then step in and either prosecutor or hand it to a county. So I don't know the answer to that. We'll find that out and we'll report

on that tomorrow. I think here there is enough for a federal judge to throw this thing out on prosecutorial misconduct. When you weigh the full portion of the evidence that Fannie Willis, the DA, is on the record, is saying she wants to get Trump. Okay, it's on a record, all right, that she hires somebody that isn't qualified, as you pointed out, to do whatever her

bidding is. And the person, according to the person's wife, that's where we got all the personal information in a divorce proceeding, is running all over the place, Caribbean, California, on the Georgia taxpayer dime with Fannie to have fun. I mean, that in itself is corrupt. She could get charged with that. Could she not? So, yeah, she could potentially be charged

with honest services fraud, which is a federal offense, we're paying monies to another person using a facility of interstate commerce, usually wiring it or something, and then getting a kickback for it. I don't think a federal judge is going to step in on this,

state case to try to remove her. I don't think he has any jurisdiction to do that, but the state judge, the county judge who's holding the hearing, who has all these cases, has a hearing on February 15th. And if she doesn't recuse herself and any honest person would, given the look, he'll kick her off the case and kick her whole office and weighed off the case. Then we'll see where the case goes from there. And you think that will happen. You think the judge in Georgia will do that. I can tell on your voice. Yeah, I was a judge. I mean, I did it for five, years this is not a close case the appearance of impropriety alone is enough to recuse her and there's no defense she doesn't have any defense not defending herself not saying oh it didn't happen i didn't do it

um it happened she did it now let's get to the most serious part of this case this guy goes up the boyfriend to the white house twice and is admitted goes in why no clue I mean, he does not have, unless he is there for a reason completely unrelated to this case, which I highly doubt, then he has no business being at the White House talking with them about anything related to this case because he's supposed to be an independent special prosecutor and there's supposed to be no coordination between the federal government, much less the White House, and a lower level state case based on election fraud. But that kicks it into the federal jurisdiction. It could. It does. It could. Well, it could, Bill.

But I honestly think that this mess is going to get cleaned up at the state level in terms of the impropriety. Now, with respect to the honest services fraud allegation, which could arise, then the feds would get involved. But we'll see whether this attorney general would ever go after her. Remember, there have been other prosecutors like Fannie Willis. who the feds haven't gone after, despite their egregious office, misconduct while in office. So I don't have high hopes for Garland going after her. Okay. But I think the state of Georgia will.

I don't think they're going to let this sit. Okay, Mr. Simpson, when you get something new, please let us know. We really appreciate it. And thanks for taking the time. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Let's face it, the U.S. 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. Theroux, 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 401K, tax and penalty-free. With billions and precious metals delivered thousands of five-star reviews and an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau, you can trust American Hartford Gold as I do.

Please call 866-326-55-7576 or text bill to 99-8899. Again, that's 866-326-5576-5576 or text bill to 998899. Power, politics, and the people behind the headlines. I'm Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist, and the host of the brand new podcast, Podforce One. Every week, I'll sit down for candid conversations with Washington's most powerful disruptors, lawmakers, newsmakers, and even the President of the United States. These are the leaders shaping the future of America and the world. Listen to Podforce One with me, Miranda Devine,

every week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. You don't want to miss an episode. There is a new podcast on the first TV, which carries the No Spin News, you know. Just started Monday. It's hosted by a guy named Josh Hammer. He is a senior editor at large for Newsweek, the internet magazine. And I've been around, the journalist. He comes to us from Miami, Florida. So why do we need four million and one podcasts? Well, Bill, it's great to join you. As I told you, off air. I really grew up watching your program. So it's really an honor and a privilege. So

we feel that there is no one currently covering all of the various litigation and lawfare affecting the 2024 presidential election who is being fair and honest about it. Now, you have many podcasts on the left from the New York Times, NPR, CNN, Washington Post, from that whole media or a bit that are trying to cover the various Trump-related legal drama, such as the Fannie Wilson incident that you were just talking about. But they're obviously doing so through a a very specific analytical prism, a vehemently anti-Trump, you might say TDS, Trump Drainment Syndrome, inflicted prison. On the other hand, you have some commentators on the right who I think, you know, if we're trying to be fair here, probably also are not entirely fair, that they are so

in Trump apologist mode that they're trying to remove kind of their legal analysis cap and just trying to offer up any kind of defense that they possibly can. I would like to think, Bill, and I guess we'll see if this experiment is successful, but I'm just going to call it like I see it. I'm an attorney by background. I still speak to federal society groups of law schools all across the country, even published actually a piece of constitutional scholarship earlier this month. I'm a very conservative guy, but I actually openly supported Ron DeSantis in the primary, so I don't hold any water for Donald Trump. I'm a conservative lawyer who's going to call it like they see it. And we're on the show bill. We're going to talk not just about Trump's legal trials.

We're going to talk also about Hunter Biden. Of course, his gun prosecution, his tax prosecution. We'll talk about the question of 14th Amendment Section 3, Insurrection Clause, the question of Trump ballot access all across the country. And, you know, occasionally we'll sprinkle in some other legal news as well. So, for example, in my show this morning, I talked about the Texas Board of Dispute, which reached the U.S. Let me stop you there. Just nuts and bolts before we get to the Texas situation. How long is the podcast? It's a short form, so it's only 15 to 20 minutes every morning.

It's trying just to get you the legal news of the day. to 20 minutes, five days a week? Yes, sir. Okay. And you're concentrating on policy that crosses the line into the legal realm. So I get a lot of mail on Texas, and I've been very clear on it. The Supreme Court is a final word in this country on legal matters. And the most recent ruling in Texas, five to four, was that

If the federal authorities want to remove razor wire that the state of Texas has placed on federal land, that they have the legal right to do it, and Texas cannot stop that. And I said that ruling is compatible with the Constitution. Would you say yes or no to that? Look, I mean, Texas and the United States are both sovereign entities. Well, you got to answer the question, Josh. Based on the Constitution, would you say the Supreme Court ruling upheld what the Constitution says? So unfortunately, Bill, what the court held, I do not think that it's compatible with current U.S. law, because if you look at current U.S. law, including the statute that's commonly referred to as EDPUB, which was the statute passed after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1996, you know, it is all-encompassing, ubiquitous United States congressional.

passed legislation that the United States has to protect the borders of this country. They have to detain illegal migrants when they cross there. That's a theory, and it's a correct theory. But based on the law, okay, and you can disagree with the law, and I would say probably the most of our audience tonight does, that Governor Abbott's doing the right thing by protecting the citizens of Texas by putting razor wire up so migrants can't pour in. I mean, I think the sympathies of the American people are with Governor Abbott. But the wording of the law, again, you can disagree with it, but it's clear.

And once the Supreme Court rules, that has got to be upheld or we have anarchy. Would you agree with that? I think it's a little more complicated than that, Bill. I have to say I do. So look, the United States, if you look at what the Supreme Court order said, they said that Border Patrol has the ability to go in and sniffing. razor wire as they so choose. Now it's worth parsing that out legally because the Supreme Court order, as I think you just implicitly noted, was actually silent as to what the state of Texas can do. It says nothing whatsoever as to what Greg Abbott's Department of Public

Safety, Texas Rangers can do when it comes to putting up new wire. So it becomes something of a Mexican standoff, if you will, pun very much intended. I don't disagree with any of that, okay? The order clearly states that if the Border Patrol deems necessary, it can take the wire out. And state of Texas cannot stop the water patrol from doing that. But three days later, the state of Texas can put more wire back. They don't violate the law by doing that according to this ruling because the ruling was so narrow. Okay. And that's what the state of Texas is telling you. Say, look, all right, go take it out. All right, but we're going to put it back. And then they'll take it out again or whatever. And Mexican standoff.

cliche, but that's what it is. However, if Governor Abbott put Texas Rangers down with the razor wire and said to the federalies, don't touch our wire, he could be arrested and put in the prison. That's what you can't do. I would agree with you on that. The order very, very were sympathico on that. And the reason that all this happened was because the federal government has jurisdiction over the borders of the United States, not the states, and federal law trump state law, always. Now, the problem then becomes, what do you do when you have a president who will not enforce the law, which we have right now. And this is the frustration on the right Republican Party, not enforcing the law.

And people are in danger in Texas and New Mexico and California and Arizona. All of that is true. But there are mechanisms to remove the president if he won't enforce the law. Unfortunately, our system is so corrupt now that the mechanism of impeachment is now a party thing. It's not like it was in Watergate. I'll give you the last word on it. Well, Bill, this whole dispute takes me back to the 2012 Supreme Court case, Arizona versus United States, which was a very, very similar legal issue. Arizona passed a strong anti-legal immigration law under then-Governor called SB 1070. And the court did rule in a very divided ruling five, four. They basically upheld parts of the law, struck down parts of the law.

But my favorite opinion from that case, which is the one that I quoted both on my new show and on my column on Friday, was the concurrence slash dissent of the late great justice. Anthony Scalia. What he says, I think this is exactly right as a matter of constitutional law 101, because the states are sovereign entities, they have the right to exclude and to enforce their own border with two exceptions bill, unless there are constitutional limitations to the contrary or congressional impositions to the contrary. That's the Supremacy Clause of Article 6, which you referenced earlier. I think the key point, though, for Scalia in Arizona and that I would make here in Texas is that those two factors don't actually apply right now because there is no congressional legislation that would affirmatively allow border patrol in this case to go in and snip razor wire

in defiance of pre-existing congressional statute. So I think it is a little bit more legally complicated of a situation. But having said that I think that Texas is absolutely doing the right thing. And I do think that Biden is bluffing and that he's going to blink first when it comes to this standoff as well. All right. Well, we'll have more challenges, certainly in the next six months. So the podcast is called America on trial. The guy I'm talking to right now with the beard is Josh Hammer.

and you can check him out every morning on the first. And you should, Josh, smart guy. If anything else catches your eye on immigration front, let us know, Josh. Okay, we appreciate you coming on. You bet, Bill. Thanks so much. Okay, cheers. Hey, it's Sean Spicer from the Sean Spicer Show podcast, reminding you to tune into my show every day to get your daily dose inside the world of politics.

President Trump and his team are shaking up Washington like never before, and we're here to cover it from all size, especially on the topics the mainstream media won't. So if you're a political junkie on a late lunch or getting ready for the drive home, new episodes of the Sean Spicer Show podcast drop at 2 p.m. East Coast every day. Make sure you tune in. You can find us at Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.

Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, Plus the news people actually talk about, the juicy details in the worlds of politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between. It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show. Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast. Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Now there's a new book out, and I'm halfway through it. It's called amateur hour, Amateur Hour, Kamala Harris in the White House.

It's written by Charlie Spearing, as a political reporter, former White House correspondent for Breitbert News, conservative operation. He joins us now from Washington, D.C. So from what I'm getting out of your book, and it's not a hatchet, Joe, I thought it would be, because you're a conservative guy, and I don't know any conservatives who really have much use for Kamala Harris. but you lay out pretty much how she has conducted herself in the public arena, from California politics all the way to Washington. From what I'm getting and correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't finished the whole book. Kamala Harris is basically a machine politician. She attached herself to powerful people in the California Democratic Party,

Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, and a big shot in Sacramento, and she kind of rose up through the patronage system, Attorney General, Senator, but she's never really done anything. Or if she has, I haven't gotten to it yet in your book. Am I wrong? Am I missing a point here? That's right, Bill. You really hit the nail on the head. In fact, in my research, one of the earliest critiques of Kamala Harris was from, you yourself on your own show, where you pointed out how police officers were arresting women

for prosecution, but Kamala Harris refused to prosecute. So leaving all their work into the dust. This is the kind of person she was. She did not take any controversial or any serious reform proposals. She kind of just rode along, made the elites happy, and kept rising through the ranks of California politics. When you run in a one-party town, you're not running to convince voters to vote for you. You're basically running to keep the elites impressed, to convince the elites that you deserve a place on the national stage. And that's how she rose through the ranks and ultimately becoming senator and then finally our vice president. Well, like her boss, Joe Biden, she doesn't seem to have any core beliefs. At one time in California, she was aggressively prosecuting

marijuana dealers. But now she doesn't want to do that. She was always pro-choice. She was always an abortion person, always. But early on, she wasn't a woman, hear me roar. She was subservient to men. It doesn't look like she has any core belief system other than I want to get power. And I'm going to do what I have to do to get. Absolutely.

When she first ran for president, she kind of ran into that wall of being very, sort of really struggling to explain exactly struggling to explain exactly what she believed and really trying to coordinate her different positions on different issues. And she definitely had an issue going into the campaign. And we saw that during the debates. We saw that as she tried to attack Joe Biden on issues of race. But without any sincere belief, without any sincere core, she failed to impress voters on the national stage.

Yeah. And I mean, look, if she in the debate says to Biden, hey, you were a racist because little girls like me, you remember the quote, were forced. to do these things, and we shouldn't have been forced to do them, and you were behind that. And then she says, oh, yeah, but now I want to be vice president. You go, you should be running away from this guy. In the larger picture, if Joe Biden wins re-election, because she's going to be on a ticket, they're not going to boot Kamala Harris off,

because they can't, because she fills all the boxes for the ethnicity, the DEI, all of that. She can't boot her off. Then you're actually, because I don't think Biden, if he's re-elect, is going to make four years. My God, the guy's got a early dimension now. So you're really voting for her for president. That's right. Absolutely. Kamala Harris could very easily become the 47th president of the United States. And that's kind of why I wrote the book. Who is this woman? How did she get so high up in politics to be a heartbeat away from the presidency as it is? You know, we didn't. didn't have to worry about that so much with vice presidents like Al Gore because, you know,

Bill Clinton was relatively healthy. So it's important to understand who this person is beyond the word salads, beyond the insecurities and inability to communicate. So we're very much looking at the possibility of President Kamala Harris, who has never run for president on her own, run a successful presidential candidate campaign on her own without making, you know, and becoming the next president. I would assume she would be almost like Biden, captive of the far left, progressive left would tell her pretty much what to do

and she would do it. Would I be wrong? No, absolutely. The problem is that team Biden has a very strong, very powerful cohort who are advising him and telling him what to do. But Kamala has a lot of anger towards that team. She feels like she's been sidelined by that team.

She feels like she's been put in, bad situations because of that team. And when she does ultimately take power, she's going to anger a lot of Democrats and make them really upset as she sort of clears House and installs her own team. Now, you really believe that she has a deep resentment toward the Biden White House, not just passive aggressive, that she kind of like want to settle some scores? Yeah, I think that, you know, Biden famously wanted a buddy presidential candidate who he could lunch with frequently. You noted that she's having lunch with him today. There were huge stretches where they didn't even meet up or have lunch at all.

And there was definitely, especially during the chaos on the border, she was not happy. A report in the book, she was not happy with having that role thrust upon her. She repeatedly corrected him in person, in public, in front of him, that she was not handling the border crashes. She was only in charge of root causes. So I really think that she feels that she had to protect her political brand from Biden. and she really has no respect for Biden at this point at all. There is a rumor that Biden wanted Whitmer, the governor of Michigan. Did you check that out?

Yes, absolutely. He definitely preferred Whitmer. He viewed her as a very helpful person, someone who is plain spoken, someone who is committed to infrastructure. If you remember her campaign, she won on the idea of just fix the damn roads. You know, Biden's an infrastructure person. and that really resonated with him. But it came at the same time

that the whole country was on fire with the George Floyd were at. And even Whitmer herself tried to take herself out of the running for vice president, but Biden urged her to stay in. Ultimately, though, his team and former President Obama convinced him that it was critical to have a woman of color

on the ticket if they were going to put the Obama coalition back together in 2020. All right. Charlie, we appreciate the book again is Amateur Hour. Kamala Harris in the White House. Good luck with it. Hope people check it out. Here's a gem from the no-spin News Vault. Our guest today is an interesting guy. I used to live in Colorado. As many of you know, I work for KMGH TV, Channel 7 in Denver. And Congressman Ken Buck represents a force district in Colorado. Colorado is a much different state now than it was

when I was there, I think, in the war of 1812. It was the late 1970s I was there. Much, much different state. But it is a state that matters. And it's not thoroughly read, but it's getting there. Now, Congressman Buck has a book called Crushed Big Tech's War. On free speech, he has introduced legislation with Senator Josh Hawley to ban TikTok. We're going to get into that in a minute. The congressman joins us now from Washington.

First, I'm going to ask you some, you know, breaking news stuff. Then we'll get to your book. All right? So the first thing is that you're on the House Judiciary Committee and Jim Jordan is the chairman. And Jordan is going after the border real heavy. But I don't think with this president having about two years to go, anything is going to change down on the border. Am I wrong? Well, Bill, first, thanks for having me on. No, I don't think anything's going to change on the border in the next two years or a year and a half. I think the purpose of our hearings is to make sure the American people know the extent of the crisis and who's responsible for the crisis. And I think that any legislative package that we put together is going nowhere in the Senate. They're not going to get 60 votes to, to move that piece of legislation. And so it's really just highlighting the crisis and the fact that President Trump had a lot of the right answers.

And the first thing that the Biden administration did was walk away from a lot of the Trump answers. Okay, so this is just basically exposing the situation for those dim enough not to understand it now. Anybody who follows the news understands it. Did you ever ask any of your Democratic colleagues why they want an open border, why they want record amounts of fentany,

and all and heroin coming in here and five and a half migrants. Do you ever ask them why they want that? I have not. I've talked to Democrats about how do we get to a solution on the border. And the first thing that the Democrats tell me is we can't have a border wall, a border fence, a barrier that restricts people from coming into the country. Well, that's a non-starter with Republicans. We've got to have barriers.

We've got to make sure that we only allow people into the country legally. And that why do they say they don't want to, why do they say they don't want the wall? Is there any logical reason behind the opposition to have border security? Anything? No, I don't understand the logic of not having. I don't understand it either. Nobody's been able to explain it to me. A couple of other things.

Matt Taibi is a reporter who is working with Elon Musk to expose the 12. Twitter situation where federal agents from the FBI met with Twitter to suppress information. The IRS shows up at Mr. Taibi's house. Do you know anything about that? I do not. Nothing at all, because I know some Republicans on your committee want to drag in some IRS people to ask that question. Yeah, and I think the IRS should explain themselves. I'm not sure they need to do it in person, but they should explain why when

Mr. Taibi and Elon Musk are involved in exposing really the weaponization of government, why then the IRS comes in. It looks like an awful bad coincidence. Okay. The final thing on the breaking news front is the Alvin Bragg situation with Donald Trump. Now the DA says that not going to have the grand jury operate on the Trump possible Trump indictment for weeks. He's postponing it. So Bragg, again, your committee, they're

threatening to bring him in so you guys can ask him questions. Is that going to happen? I don't know that that will happen. He will fight that, obviously. He doesn't want to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. It would be rare that any prosecutor or law enforcement official

would answer questions about an ongoing investigation. I think the point of the letter to Bragg was to point out that he has a weak case against a former president and presidential candidate. And it is thoroughly inappropriate to bring a weak case and to try to interfere with the political system. Okay. Donald Trump destroyed Alan Bragg. This is my opinion, Congressman. I don't, you don't have to weigh in. But by jumping this and saying, oh, I'm going to get arrested on Tuesday, of course, that didn't happen. He's brought all kinds of hell down on Bragg. It doesn't look like Bragg is even going to pursue it much now to me. You have any feelings on it?

I don't. I don't know. I don't even know really the nature of the case. I've heard a lot of rumors about what the grand jury may be investigating, what they may be talking about. I spent 25 years in front of federal and state grand juries. I didn't tell anybody when the arrest was going to happen, and I didn't tell anybody what we were investigating because of certain secrecy requirements, but I do think that the president is probably the greatest political strategist and has more access to public opinion and influence on public opinion than anybody in my lifetime. Yeah, I agree with you, and he's certainly taking brag to the cleaners.

Now, that may work against him in the long run, brag may be so angry that he just indicts him on a weak case. Let's get to TikTok. So you and Senator Hawley want to ban TikTok. Explain very briefly to my audience, some of whom are older Americans, they don't know what TikTok really is. I've never used TikTok. What exactly is it? Well, let me just explain really brief if I can. The types of wars that are going to be fought in the future involves cyber warfare. They involve one government trying to shut down another government or another banking system or utilities.

And the TikTok is an app very similar to Instagram, very popular among younger Americans, that go on and put videos of themselves up doing various things. And people click on that and it can be monetized. If you get a certain number of followers, you can earn money for putting up interesting videos that people watch because then TikTok can sell advertising to those folks. The problem is that in a cyber war, all the information that TikTok is gathering, name, date of birth, various buying habits can be used to shut down our economy. It is owned by China, which means that the Chinese Communist Party has undue influence on TikTok. They don't allow Facebook into China. They don't allow Google into China because they know that we could gather information on their citizens, and they don't want that. We can't be in a position.

Let me stop you now. So I don't go on these websites. I'm boring. I'm old. I don't go. But say I did. Say I went on TikTok and I watched some dopey kids doing whatever dopey kids do these days. How would the Chinese get my personal information?

Well, first of all, you need to sign up to be on TikTok. All right. So I have to sign up. And when I sign up, what information do I have to get? Well, you're giving them your name. your name, you're giving them your date of birth. You're not giving them social security number, but you're giving them other information of where you live, different things about your personality. Then what you do, what can happen is that somebody in China, if they're interested, can follow

your keystrokes. They can find out what your passwords are. They can find out where you bank. They can find out what utilities you use, electric company, gas company, what kind of car, as you're buying, all the information about you that you use on the same device, handheld device, desktop, all that information is going to be available to the Chinese. We can't give them that information. And you believe that there's a potential for the Chinese to do what with that information? What would they do with it? Exactly. Well, the reason that they are hacking our government systems and learning about our government employees, as well as private systems, and health insurance and other areas is that if there is a cyber war,

they can shut down our banking system. We can shut down their banking system. All of that is involved in the warfare. And some of its morale, some of it is China being able to advertise to our young people about the beauty of communism in China and how many people are benefiting and on and on, some of it's propaganda. But a lot of it just has to do with the height of a war being able to close, those really essential parts of our economy.

All right. Do you think that's going to pass that TikTok will be banned in the USA? I think the effort bill is to make sure that TikTok, the information that is gathered by TikTok is stored in the United States and that the Chinese Communist Party doesn't have access to that information. So it's just like any negotiation, you start with a position that is on one side and you hope to get to a position where you are safeguarding Americans in That's a noble cause.

All right, so I'm cruising through your book, crushed, and I need your personal opinion on this. Do you believe there was an actual conspiracy by the FBI when they met with Twitter executives, okay, to influence the election, the presidential election of 2020? Was this an active plan to help Joe Biden? become president. I don't know if it was an active plan as much as it was an unspoken truth in Twitter. The FBI certainly misrepresented the nature of Hunter Biden's laptop and the information stored on that. When they blame that on Russian disinformation, a rogue agent. I'm not suggesting

that Christopher Ray or others that the FBI were involved in this, but at least one rogue agent went out and told Twitter and Facebook that this was Russian disinformation, and Twitter didn't use any sort of discernment in the process of determining that it was, in fact, Russian disinformation. They took that and they ran with it. But a lot of the people that they kicked off and a lot of the tweets that they did not amplify hurt Donald Trump. And so, yes, I think there is a culture in Twitter. I think there's a culture in Google that causes them to censor speech on the right and particularly speech involving Donald Trone. Okay, the book is Crush, Big Text War on Free Speech, by Congressman Ken Buck.

Say hello to all my friends out in Colorado, Congressman. We appreciate you coming on tonight. Thank you for having me, Bill. Okay, sure. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the NoSpin News, visit Bill O'Reilly.com and Sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Bill O'Reilly.com.

Sign up and start watching today.