Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - June 7, 2025

Episode Date: June 7, 2025

Listen to this week's No Spin News interviews with John McLaughlin, Cleta Mitchell, and Victor Davis Hanson. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. The day after I left, there was an announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that some Chinese students would be deported. Big mistake. I haven't heard much about it. So maybe they're pulling back. You don't insult your adversary. Just like you don't insult Putin. That gets you nowhere. if you want peace. OK? That's not helpful in the big picture. And then at MIT, there was a nut.

Megha Vermeure, who gave the president of senior class, MIT. And then she gets up there and bashes Israel. Rolled tape. Last spring, MIT's undergraduate body and graduate student union voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with the job genocidal Israeli military. You called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

And you stood in solidarity with the pro-Palestine activists on campus. You faced threats, intimidation, and suppression coming from all directions, especially your own university officials. But you prevailed because the MIT community that I know would never tolerate a genocide. All right, you know, radical love people, genocide, blah, blah, blah. side, blah, blah, blah. MIT is not letting her graduate with everybody else, and they're trying to punish her like that.

But they had to know she was going to do that because she's a known radical. Jordan said, as a guy I personally requested to analyze my utterings about China, because I think he's one of the smartest guys in the country, and he's an honest man as well. He's Victor Davis-Hanson, you know him, he's a syndicated columnist.

He works at the Hoover Institution, which is on the campus of Stanford University, right? Professor, that's where you're Hoover is, right? Okay. So you know, you know the, and there are tons, one of the, there was only one woman in the, and these were hard men, by the way, in the room where I gave the seminar, about 14 of them, 13 men, one woman, who was a Stanford grad, very articulate woman, powerful woman. The other guy, she put the other guy's a shame because you understood a little bit about the flow in and out of the USA where the a lot of them didn't they really you know they were very hard core Maoists anyway

you've read my column you listen to my bloviating here what say you well i think China has a if you compare the cold if we were in a cold war and a lot of people think we are and you compare that to the Soviet Union 50 years China has a very different place in the relationship of the United States. We had no Soviet students here. We had no trade agreements. It was a Cold War.

But I would like to see more of a normalization of what I think is kind of an aberrant. We have 300,000 students. At Stanford, we just have a series of Stanford review articles revealing that there was an organized espionage group of students. We had a member of the People's Liberation Army on the faculty as a visiting neuroscientist about four years ago. The Confucius Institute was shut down.

The DeVos First Term Trump Department of Education fined Stanford for not reporting a lot of contributions. So I guess what I'm saying, Bill, is that the view of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and to a greater extent, Obama, that the more engagement you have with China, they were going to be impressed with American culture tolerance, and they were going to begin emulate us, and then they would... That's not happening. No, it's not happening. It's not happening.

So I think the Trump position was that we had given them a sense of appeasement or laxity, and our magnanimity was reciprocated by taking advantages of rather than reciprocity. And I think right now we're in a period where when you look at China, they're building three or four nuclear warheads a month, and they plan to get up to about 1,2005 years. They have violated that we don't have much success with them on copyrights, patents, dumping a product, currency, manipulation. I would like to think that maybe Hong Kong would have been an example for Taiwan, but when you look what's happened to Hong Kong, Jimmy lies in prison, and they pretty much suppress free speech.

So I guess what I'm saying is because of World War II and we have a large Chinese population here, there was a natural empathy for closer relationships. And it wasn't the Cold War, Truman Eisenhower, or Cold War. World War. There was a real opportunity, Americans thought, to reach out to China and to give them indulgences that we didn't, other countries that we had been. Yeah, it worked for a little while. It worked for a little while, but then she got in and she is, you know, she's personal legacy is tied in with Taiwan. Do you believe, I said that I came up with this partnership for prosperity and peace? And the reason that I did is,

because China has to feed 1.5 billion. They're hurting, okay? Their economy needs the United States. That is the big leverage we have over them. And they are willing to make a deal, I believe. Do you believe that? I think they're willing to make a deal in the economic realm because they're suffering

kind of a historic phenomenon that the more they have upward mobility rather than the population being satisfied. It's just a human trait, human nature. They're even more ambitious for a better life. And it's very hard to fulfill the expectations of the Chinese growing middle class because they're not spending what they should on domestic health care. It's all military stuff.

Yeah, it's all military. But there's Spartans over there. But what I saw, I tested them a couple of times. I said, you're not going to get anywhere with Trump. Because it was all Trump-centric. You know, you gave a very logical and good historical analysis. That's not what they're interested in. They're interested in Trump, okay?

And I said, the first thing you have to do is knock out the fentanyl. Okay? And you know you have to knock it out. And they go, well, we are, but the precursor. I said, I don't want to hear precursor. And remember that this was translated. You know, they had the little things. Because half the room spoke English, half didn't.

But the instant translation, I said, I don't want to hear precursor. Greek, I said, you don't need fentanyl. You don't need any of it. Knock it out. Give President Trump that. That's where you start. You don't need to be in bed with Putin. And I warned them about Putin. I said, you can try to be his friend, but he'll turn on you like a snake. You don't need to be cutting up to the Mullers. United States will supply your energy needs in a much more benign way. They could not answer any of those things, Professor. None. And I just laid it out. I said, you're going to consort with bad guys, evil guys. And that's what the label you're going to get. Why do you need it? You don't need it. It doesn't help you. And that was the thrust of the 90

minutes. Yeah, I think the trumpet, and I can't speak for them, and you know them better than I do, But I think in this narrow Soviet Russia-China-American relationship, they're trying to have a Kissinger paradigm where China is no better friend to Russia than it is to us. Russia is no better friend or enemy, whatever, to China than it is to us, and triangulate and check power, because they have historic animosities, China and Russia. Oh, yeah. And for some reason, the Ukrainian, I think we're in a period of a real problem because

they are in alignment. But it's going to be very hard for any Chinese communist leader, as it is for Putin in a dictatorial, but even more so, I think, when you have an totalitarian ideology. Putin is kind of like a dictator that makes it up as he goes along ideologically. But whether it's Iran that is ideological and totalitarian or China, it's very hard for those leaders to compromise their ideology because they have a whole group of people surrounding them that don't respond to the same incentives as either Western democracies or dictatorships where they I'll tell you why there wasn't a lot of love for Putin or Iran in that room they don't care about the Ukraine the Chinese and they don't care about no okay but there wasn't a lot of love let's pivot to to the attack by the

Trump administration on the universities we all know the indoctrination across the country at Harvard, at Stanford, you know, the finest educational institutes have basically set themselves off as progressive left institutions. And that's what Trump is trying to break down, and he's using a hammer to do it. This episode is brought to you by San Pellegrino Chau, a new kind of flavor of sparkling water, the kind made with real fruit juice, a pinch of Sicilian salt, and the sparkle of the Italian sun. With no added sugar And just 10 or less calories per can

Enjoy With love from Italy By San Pellegrino Chau Now This MailChimp forific jingle Is brought to you by MailChimp Your Marketing with AI and more Advanced Automations to Connect to Your Store

Mailchimp your marketing And booster clicks Multi-channel campaigns Now with SMS Let's lift MailChimp, your marketing today with the number one AI-powered email marketing and automation platform, Intuit MailChimp.

Number one, based on publicly available data on competitors, customers, plans vary, SMS available as ad-on, visit MailChimp.com. Can you predict the outcome? Yeah, I think they're going to have to cut a deal with them. It's analogous bill to illegal immigration. The left keeps saying that there's no criminals here. We don't have a problem.

Then almost every day we have an illegal immigrant that kills somebody or what we saw in. Colorado commits a terrorist act. The universities have so many things that are so antithetical to the public. And I just, for years, Stanford, Harvard, they have been charging the federal government anywhere from 45 to 55% surcharges on individual grants.

That was about $190 million in annual income from Stanford. Now they gotta go down to 15%. For years, they have defied the last three years of Supreme Court decision. on the end of affirmative action and basically racial preference. They have, but they, they have self-righteous euphemism, so we call it auxiliary graduations, a theme house. But basically there's segregated dorms, segregated by race graduation ceremonies.

If you are accused of sexual harassment, they do not give you, and that was Title IX, that came from the Obama administration, where they said you will not give them beyond reasonable a doubt, or you're going to lose federal funds. So the defendant can't face as accuser. They know that that's a violation of the Constitution. They also know that the Chinese government, and especially gutter, have been giving them aggregate $50 billion,

and that has really affected our foreign policy because for a generation now, people coming out of these graduate programs have taken classes. They've experienced professors that were subsidized by these two governments. And so I could go on, but there's a lot of, anti-Semitism is endemic. At Stanford, we had a 900-page report by liberal professors.

It's one of the most damning documents I've ever seen. So they don't want to get in a fight with Trump because they have so much exposure at that culpability. They charge 110% for foreign students. They've got a third of the student body. Yeah, it's all about money. But the ideology, they won't even pull back at Harvard. They acknowledge that 80% of the hires are progressives. Maybe there's five conservative teachers.

They wouldn't even acknowledge that's wrong. And so I'm basically hoping that, you know, Trump is going to win this. Yeah, Trump has all the cards. The recent Gallup poll said public support was 65% confidence in higher education. But driving the media nuts, oh, they hate it. It's down to 30%. And Trump has, he's looking at taxing the endowment income. Oh, yeah, he's going to go everywhere.

That's Miller, by the way. Yeah, they're going to have to cut a deal with him. I hope so. He'll win that, I think. And I think that if she and Trump get in the building together, that they'll cut some deals there too. Thank you, Professor. We really appreciate your expertise.

Thank you. Thanks for putting up with me. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Okay, headline front page Wall Street Journal. Now, you have to understand something if you are interested in consuming news in America. I assume you are, since you're consuming me right now on radio and television. So Wall Street Journal, in their news pages, is a left-wing situation. In their editorial pages, they are not.

they are they lean right on the editorial side but they lean left on their news coverage the headline today is law firms that appease Trump face backlash okay um the article is that if a law firm settles with the president that it's being punished some of its lawyers quit some people won't do business with it, whatever. There is only one pro-Trump lawyer mentioned in the entire article, okay? One. And a lot of lawyers who have helped or worked or support Donald Trump have gotten hurt big time. So therefore, the Wall Street Journal tilts it, okay, left, saying, oh, no, don't settle with Trump because you'll get hurt. But they ignore the Wall Street Journal, tilts it, okay, left, saying, oh, no, don't settle with Trump because you'll get hurt, but they ignore the fact that the same thing is going on

by the left punishing any attorneys who support Donald Trump. And joining us now is one of them. Clita Mitchell comes from Pinehurst, North Carolina today. She is the founder and chairman of the Election Integrity Network. So you, after the election of 2020, were involved with Georgia and the controversy down there about whether the votes were counted accurately. And you got hurt doing that, correct? Tell us what happened to you. Well, thank you, Bill, for having me and letting me talk about this. Because it's only been one side that's been told for the last 40 years, and that's by the left-wing media, including the Wall Street Journal news pages, as you pointed out.

I was a partner at a large law firm in Washington, D.C. for almost 20 years. And when after, I was asked by the White House to go to Georgia the day after the election. So November 4th of 2020, I'm an election attorney to practice campaign finance and election law for many years. And so I was asked to go to Georgia and just to see what was going on and to just check out the election situation. And so I arrived there in the wee hours of the 5th of November. And I started looking at what had gone on in the election and realized that the election was a mess. And I will just say, that's not a legal term of art, it's just exactly, but it is exactly

what happened. So many votes that were cast and counted in violation of state law, people registered at PO boxes, that's illegal in Georgia, people whose registrations were recorded as having been what the post office records showed were vacant premises, either vacant lots or nobody lived there. And adding all of that up, basically we knew that there were more votes that were cast and counted and were included in the certified total than the margin of victory between President Trump and Joe Biden. So I was one of the president's volunteer lawyers, and that was interesting in and of itself, because there had been this real push from the left,

just like what you were reading today, where there was this big leftist push, starting the day after the election, where law firms were threatened and told that people would take their business away from law firms who represented President Trump in the post-election of 2020. So let's start with that. And so here I am, a partner in a big law firm,

And I'm volunteering because my firm decided not to accept payment because they didn't want to basically telegraphed the outside world that we were doing anything on behalf of the president. And so fast forward, we filed an election contest, 64 pages, over 1,100 pages of exhibits. And we never got a judge appointed to hear the case, which was very odd. I believe we could talk about that on a separate broadcast, podcast, but the bottom line is that we ended up, the president wanted to have a conversation with the Secretary of State because we hadn't had a judge appointed and to see if there might be some way to resolve the case by comparing the data that was included in our litigation with the data that the Secretary of State said that he had in his office that he wouldn't share with us. And so to try to get some resolution before the certification and enjoy the electoral votes. They never got it. And you believe that there was illegalities involved in the total. I think you believe that Trump won the state.

Is that correct? Well, in all honesty, Bill, and I've said this to the president. I don't think we know who won because it was such a mess. And that's absolutely valid. And there you go. but there are enough questions whereby it should have been clarified. And it was. That's right.

Okay. And so you were following the law. You did an honest job. You're correct. Do you want to mention the law firm, name the law firm? I'd rather not. Okay. Rather not.

So you're down there on your own dime. You do an honest job. You come back to D.C. and they fire you? No. What happened was that the secretary of state in a phone call, that was arranged to discuss the data that was in our lawsuit with the Secretary of State. That phone call was illegally recorded by the Deputy Secretary of State, a woman by the name of Jordan Fuchs.

And she was in Florida at the time. She lied about it to the Washington Post, by the way, because Florida is a two-party consent state. You're not supposed to record the phone call unless you have the consent of the other people on the call. And she did not obtain that. She recorded the call. release the tape to the Washington Post the next day. And so that phone call, the president has been quoted in that phone call as saying,

we just need to find 12,000 votes, as though he was asking the Secretary of State to go find votes. No, he was just clarifying how many votes were needed to overturn the state. Look, any honest broker knows that, but I'm interested in you. I'm interested in you now. So once that transcript was released by the Washington Post, within 24 hours, the Lincoln Project, which, as you know, is run by a bunch of never-trumper's perverted people, they started posting on Twitter the phone numbers of our offices, the firm's offices, we had offices all over the country, and telling people to start, and then listing some of our major corporate. clients, which is a matter of public record, and having people call the corporate clients to tell the corporate clients to call their relationship partner to tell the partners that they were going

to take their business away from our law firm unless the firm fired me. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out. That's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. A brunt payment of $45 for three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required.

New customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com. 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 kids.

candid conversations with Washington's most powerful disruptors, lawmakers, lawmakers, 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. And it literally shut down, me personally. Okay, so they threaten your law firm.

You better fire Cleeta Mitchell or we're going to take our business elsewhere. Correct. Now, did any media report that? Oh, what they reported was that I was forced out of the firm. I ended up resigning from the firm. We reached an agreement. But what they've all reported for four. years, is that I was the attorney who tried to overturn the election in Georgia.

Filing an election contest is not considered overturning the election. They didn't report that you were threatened by the Lincoln Project. No, no, no, no, no. None of that was reported. None of that was reported. No, no, no, no. We had to shut down the switchboards in all of our offices, all across the country. Clea, you know me for a long time.

I've been through this. I've been through this time and time and time again. Okay? And that's why I got out. That's why I got out. Right. All right. You're right. Well, I'm just not going to deal with it anymore. Honestly. Right. I just said, so I left the law firm in January of 2021. And I haven't practiced law since then. But what I spent my time doing since February 1st of 2021, I've been the senior legal fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute. And I founded the Election Integrity Network. And I've been working for. full-time in election integrity. But every news article, every news article refers to me as the lawyer who tried to help Trump overturn the election in 2020. And it's a smear. The other thing, yes. And then within about a month, just a few weeks later, I receive a bar

complaint that was fine. I was originally admitted to the bar in Oklahoma. It's where I'm from, and I practiced law there before I moved to Washington, D.C. in the 1990s. And so I'm member of the bar in Washington, D.C. and in Oklahoma. And so I had a bar complaint filed against me by 29 people, lawyers. I've never heard of. I've never heard of one of them. They're organized into a cabal. Let's get, let's get Clea Mitchell. Right. Right. Okay. And then what I learned then is that that began a trend, a project founded by David Brock. You may I know, I'm a smear merchant. So he finds some, he created something called the 65 project, and they filed bar complaints against every lawyer in America who in any way,

shape, or form have represented President Trump. Right. And that these projects are paid for by people like George Soros. I don't know if Soros directly pay this, but that's where the money comes from. Brock lives off that money and he makes a lot of money himself. He makes a lot of money to destroy people like you. Right. All right. All right, Clida, we have it. That bar complaint went on what? The bar complaint go anywhere real quick. No, but they didn't dismiss it for three years. It was fully brief, but it wasn't dismissed for three years. So you had a deal with it and all of that. Well, we're sorry, but I think you're better off now than you were and you're helping to country more now.

I always say, yeah. I say that they, you know, they thought they'd vanquished me, but what they really did was they made me, they freed me from billable hours, so I could just spend full-time working on trying to fix the elections. And I'm very happy that this broadcast here could tell your story because that's the outrage. They just won't, they just won't tell the truth. They'd be in the Washington Post of the world. They're not interested in that.

All right, Clea, good luck to you. you, anybody ever bothers you again, you come right to me, okay? I appreciate that, Bill. Thank you. This is the no-spin News Weekend Edition. Three new polls about President Trump v. Zogby, favorable to the president. A thousand likely voters. Do you approve or disapprove? 48% approve of the job President Trump is doing. 49% disapprove. Split right down the middle.

Trophalga poll, pro-Trump poll. Okay, 1,098, likely general election voters. How do you feel about President Trump handling his job? Approved 54, disapproved 46. That's a very strong number for the president. And the last one is Atlas, this is out of Brazil, but they were the most accurate pollsters in the election of 2024. 3,469 adults, a big sample.

Okay? Do you approve or disproved job Donald Trump is doing? Approved 45, disapprove 54. So, you know, there's a big, it's almost exactly the opposite of Trafalgar. So joining us now is our go-to guy on the polling. John McLaughlin's an honest man. He works for President Trump. I mean, we've got to let you know that. He likes Trump. He likes his policies. He polls for Trump. But he's a lot. honest, ma'am. All right, so can you explain to us the difference between Trafalgar and Atlas? Yes.

Well, first of all, it's the difference between likely voters and adults. And we just posted a poll that we did last week at the same time as the Atlas poll was in the field, and we polled a thousand likely voters modeled after the 2024 election in demographics, and we had Trump's job approval of 51, and his disproved was 44. And it's a big difference because in the election last year, you only had 155 million voters go to the polls. There was over 90 million more eligible adults who didn't show up at the polls that there's polling.

When you're doing a poll in a sample of adults. What difference does that make? Shouldn't they have a right to put an opinion on Trump's performance? Oh, they can have an opinion, but it's a poll of adults. It's not a poll of likely voters, so you get the disparity. And also, when you go through the Atlas sample, they have a cross tab for voted Trump, voted Harris. But in their demographics, they don't tell you how many people that they polled voted for Harris and voted for Trump. And that's been the flaw.

We know in our likely voter polls, we used our polling as a strategy to raise his popular vote so we could sweep the battleground states so we get 50% of the national vote. And to Harris is 48%. And that was our strategy. So it's not apples to apples. And when you look at Atlas, yeah, they were most accurate last year because they were, they were doing something that are replicated actual likely voters. 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 world's 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, or wherever you get your podcasts. These polls that are coming out now where you've got, I mean, the New York Times put out a poll, they had only had 37% Trump voters. The Washington Post, ABC, had only 34%.

Yeah, I know. We don't even bother with them anymore because we know how corrupt it is. They have their thumb on the scale to use a cliche. How do you think Donald Trump is doing, though? I mean, you're seeing numbers every day. It's obvious he was successful or he is successful,

closing the border. Most people do support the ice raids and getting that whole thing under control. But the tariff situation is royal the American people and I think divided it. Would I be wrong in saying that? Well, they don't grasp it as well as the tax cuts. In the national poll that we put up, 58% want them to get the tax cuts passed.

20% secure the border, 7% lower the price of oil and gas, 7% strength of national defense. But at the same time, we asked in the same poll, do you think the tariffs are hurt or have they helped? And 47% think they've helped right now, as of last week, only 38% said hurt. So the jury's still out on that. It's a much more complex issue. Sure. But it really isn't. You know why, John?

Because what it's going to come down to, and this will clarify itself by November, I think, is whether people are paying more money for the essentials of life. That's what it's going to be. I mean, people don't have to understand who's paying it and what. that's coming from and this one's there and that's steel here and the cards are there and an agricultural, they're going to walk into the grocery store and they're going, I'm getting a break under Trump or I'm paying more under Trump. And that's what's going to decide it. Am I wrong? No, you're exactly right. And that's why the tariffs issue is secondary and much, much less

important than passing the tax cuts. Because if we don't pass the tax cuts, only half the voters know this. We know this for our polling. The Trump tax cuts laps this year. Yeah. And everybody pays more. There's no doubt about it. So it is a vital thing. And that's why Trump is behind it so hard. I think he's going to get it passed. But there's going to be some Senate modifications. And Trump will live with that. He knows he has to negotiate it. But the Democrats have downside, too, here, because if they vote and block not to pass it, then easily that anger, when people's taxes go up, can be transferred to the Democratic Party, right? Right.

But hopefully the taxes never go up. But the Democrats, every Democrat in the Senate and the House, is on record as voting against extending the tax cuts. So they're bold voted for the largest tax increase in the history of the amount. And we've got to hold them accountable. We've got to get it. It's crazy. And they hide behind this ridiculous, oh, we just want to tax the rich. But it isn't that.

It's everybody. And, you know, it's the same thing about Medicaid. Oh, they want to throw people up. Medicaid. No, they want to regulate it. They want to refine it. But anyway, political lies are, you know, they're never ending. Last question for you.

I think President Trump would have been better if he had. had not done so much so fast. It would have been easier for him to convince the American people of why he's doing what he's doing. But because the change has been so massive, because the Biden administration was so horrible, that it all came at once, and it's almost too much for the average person who doesn't do what you and I do for a living, to grasp it. So they're more subjected to propaganda. So if he had just not done and just incrementally done it, I think he'd be in a stronger position. Do you agree? You may be right, but it's hard to get him to do that. You know him personality-wise? Yeah, I know. Biden left the country in such a mess.

He has a 40 favorable, 56 unfaerable, I last ball. The guy left such a mess that Trump, you know, he's got to solve wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, secure the border. and try to get the economy to grow all at the same time, and you're dealing with the president now who has survived two assassination attempts after they tried to put them in jail. So if we don't get the Trump tax cut past, have a growing economy,

and we lose control of the House and the midterms, then we've got a big problem because they'll impeach him again. Yeah, that's for sure. I'm writing about that, and my message is the day tomorrow about the midterms and now how it's starting to shape up. So, John, look,

If you see any trends, just do me a favor. Let us know about the president, both pro and con, because I think our audience is very, we're numbers people here. We don't want the propaganda. We want the hard numbers. And we really appreciate it. As always, thanks for helping us out. 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