Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - March 16, 2024

Episode Date: March 16, 2024

Listen to this week's No Spin News interview with Republican National Committee Co-Chair Lara Trump, Constitutional Law Professor Josh Blackman, and General Counsel for Mountain States Legal Foundation William Trachman. We also visit the No Spin News archives and Bill's conversation with Senator Ted Cruz. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So now let's turn to the inside Republican situation. As you know, I'm an independent. I'm not associated with any party. Don't really follow the party politics very much unless someone inside either party starts to hurt you. Then I rapidly get involved. The Republican Party is in the middle of a changeover from Ronna McDaniel, who is the chair of the RNC. And now, as of last Friday, you have Michael Watley and Lara Trump, who is President Trump's daughter-in-law. She joins us now from Washington.

So when I heard first that you were going to do this, I went, why would anybody want this job? I mean, I know you want your father-in-law to be back in the Oval Office, that's obvious. But you have a family, you got kids, and this is like 24 hours a day, this never stops, right? Well, you're right, Bill. I mean, to be honest with you, it's not a job that I ever wanted or a job that I ever really thought I would pursue, but I also never thought that our country would be in such dire straits, and we truly are. I think you really have seen us in a space in America where if this election coming up on November 5th goes the wrong way, and Joe Biden ends up with four more years in the Oval

Office. I really don't know what kind of country we have on the other side of that. So, yeah, I have two young children. They're four and six years old. I have a lot of things that I'm busy with all the time, but nothing is more important to me than ensuring that their future is set up well and that every American child gets to grow up in the same America I got to grow up in. So when my father-in-law called and he said, would you do this?

To be honest with you, I thought about it and I had to think long and hard about it. And then I said, you know what, if I'm the best person for this job and this is the best use of my time over the next eight months, absolutely I'm a yes. Okay. What does the RNC actually do besides raising money? I mean, we know you raise money and you're going to have to raise a lot of it in the next eight months to compete with the Democrats, which, you know, that's a money donating machine over there. But what else does the RNC do besides raising money? Well, look, you don't win the presidency without the support of the Republican National Committee. The reality is this is a committee that's been around so long.

It's obviously one of the two major political parties in this country, and they have an apparatus across the country in every state, in every district around the United States of America. And so once you have a nominee named, which obviously Donald Trump is, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, you need the apparatus of the R&C to help all across the country in different districts. You've got to be specific now. I mean, okay, to help, all right, got it. But how do you do that?

I mean, one of the reasons that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, to me, and I'm pretty, I've been around like a long time since U.S. grant, was that the Democrats were better organized in getting out the mail and ballots and all of this stuff, okay? So they mobilized more people to the polls than the Republicans did. And they did that in a variety of ways. They had a lot of money from Mark Zuckerberg, hundreds of millions of dollars,

to hire people to go out. How is the RNC gonna compete against that in November? Yeah, well, the truth. truth is you're right bill we have not been playing the game the same way we have been playing checkers and the dnc and the democrats have been playing chess we have to fight fire with fire and you're right as republicans we've had this notion for a long time we're going to go out and i'll vote on election day and it would be great if we had voter id across the country it would be great if we had paper ballots we don't have those things we know election day starts in

some states months ahead of november 5th we have to start talking to people on the republican side of the aisle about early voting, about mail-in voting. But what does that mean? Does that mean you hire local people to do that, like the Democrats do? What exactly are you going to do? Well, there's a whole host of different ways. First of all, messaging has to be go vote early. For a long time, we never told people that.

We said, wait until election day. So the messaging is going to change. We are hiring people like legal ballot harvesters all across this country to go everywhere you legally can and harvest ballots. What does that mean, though, harvest ballots? Does that mean convince people to vote a certain way? Is that what harvest about? What does that mean?

Not on the Republican side. Perhaps on the Democrat side, they may help you fill it out. What ballot harvesting is, is literally going to an area where you can have a contingent of people, a group of people. You take their ballots and then you take it to a designated location and turn them in. They bring their ballots to the VFW Hall and then the RNC, as somebody, at the hall who takes those ballots physically and brings them to the voting precinct. That's what ballot harvesting is.

And you're going to do that now in a much more aggressive way than you did it four years ago. Is that what I'm hearing? That's exactly right. We're going to turn out low propensity voters. These are people who maybe only vote in one out of every four presidential elections, but every time they will vote Republican. We're going to target these people using a bunch of different software and AI technology. that perhaps we hadn't had in the past.

But I think the most important thing we have to do is protect the vote. Election integrity is something that every person in this country... Well, how do you do that, though? How do you protect the vote? Well, look, we have a whole host of different lawyers that are going to be spread out across the country. Some of these are paid.

We are also asking for volunteer attorneys to be in every polling location. And they're going to be at the actual polling places? Because you know it's against the law to politic at polling places. So you're going to have people observing. We can have eyes on the ground. Legally, you can have poll watchers.

We will have trained poll watchers. This is something the R&C has never done. These are people who can actually count the ballots going in, ballots going out, handle them, and really assure people that every single legal vote in this country is counted. Because, Bill, if we don't have election integrity, nothing else ultimately matters. You're going to be hiring a lot of people, Lara.

But we sure will. You got to compete. Our final question, I think that one of the reasons, and you know that I've known your father-in-law a lot longer than you have. Yes. One of the reasons he chose you, and I could be wrong, I'm just guessing he never discussed it with me, is because you are articulate and a good fundraiser, and they can throw you out into Kansas and Montana to raise money. And that's what you're going to be doing a lot of it. Am I right?

Oh, I certainly will be raising a lot of money. And I think the reality is there are people across this country who maybe at one time donated to the RNC and have said, look, I don't really know if I trust this organization over the past five or six years or so. And I think one of the things that has been my focus is to ensure that every penny of every dollar goes to the causes that people who donate care about. Of course, electing Donald Trump at the top of the ticket, but all the way down, We've got to expand our lead in the House, take back the Senate, and make sure we have America First Patriots running for all these positions and supporting them. That's what I'll be focusing on. Well, you're going to be one busy woman.

I can say much. I sure will. If you run into Jeffrey Katzenberg, who's doing what you're doing on the other side, I mean, he's the big money man for Biden. Are you going to say anything to Katzenberg? You're going to give him a little jab? What are you going to do? I would be very nice and very pleasant because you always want to be nice to people when they're on their way out. Okay.

Larry Trump, thank you very much to take your time. We really appreciate it. You got it. 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 through the only dealer I trust, American Hartford gold. And you can do this. get precious metals delivered to your door or place in a tax advantage gold IRA.

They'll even help you roll over your existing IRA or 401K, tax and penalty free. With billions in 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, 5576, or text, Bill to 998899. Again, that's 866-326-5576-5576 or text bill to 998899. 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 sides, especially on. 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 Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. You're listening to the No Spin News Weekend Edition.

The Supreme Court now is right in the middle of the Donald Trump campaign. and the case about whether he is, gets immunity from all of this stuff, it's supposed to start hearings in front of the court April 25th. All right, so let's get to the bottom of this. Joining us now from Houston is Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law. So let's keep it really simple, counselor. Donald Trump's lawyers, and, of course, the candidate himself,

claim that he should not be prosecuted for anything that happened while he was president of the United States. That's where it all begins, correct? That's right. There's a doctrine called immunity. What that means is when you hold some government offices, the prosecutors can't come after you later for what you've done. This has been applied in the civil context, that is if you sue someone for damages, for example, if you discriminate and so on, the president's been held to be immune. from civil damages. But this will be the first case consider the criminal immunity of a foreign president before the Supreme Court. The reason why is Trump is at first born president

to be charged with a crime? So we don't really have any background upon this. Okay. So why would the Supreme Court ever rule in his favor if there isn't a constitutional basis to do so? So Trump's argument is that when you're president, you have to make a lot of really tough decisions. And sometimes you have to make a call that might be unpopular. So Trump has argued that if the president has a fear that he might be prosecuted by his successor, the president might be chilled. That is, he might be afraid to take the decisive action that's needed to keep this country safe. So the president needs basically a cushion, a buffer zone of ability to take certain actions. And he gives an example if the president has to order a drone strike on someone,

a U.S. citizen, can the president be charged with murder after his office? So there are a lot of reasons why president must have immunity. That's sort of the big ticket question. The more specific question is, did Trump's actions on January 6th require immunity? So is there immunity, and does Trump get it for what happened on J6? Or is there a crime? Because remember, the special counsel is charging him with conspiracy. All right, he's not charging him with doing something, allegedly doing something that is visible.

He's saying that, well, his actions, his total actions resulted in a conspiracy. Will the Supreme Court take the weakness, I see it as a weakness anyway, of that argument into account when making their immunity call? So at this stage, actually, the specifics don't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's conspiracy or the retention of documents, the Mar-a-Lago case. The only issue the court's deciding is sort of the big-picture issue. Is there presidential immunity to criminal prosecutions? Yes or no. If the court answers yes, then we never get to conspiracy.

Okay, let me stop you there. If that's the case, then Trump is likely to lose this. Because if you were a president and you were in the White House and somebody teed you off and you strangle them to death, you can't have immunity, right? Right. So here's an example that came up with the argument. What if the president decides to send SEAL Team 6 to assassinate his political rival? He says, aha, I determined I have the presidential power to do this.

At that point, a court might say, no, you don't. You don't have the power to assess your rival. That's like a bad idea. And then we get to, well, maybe not everything's immune, but maybe something within a certain perimeter, a certain sphere of your power. So if this is close enough to what you're supposed to do, it's there. So let's use January 6th for an example. The president has no actual role in the vote counting.

That's a job for the Senate to do. But the president has a role to administer a various types of election laws and the like. So maybe it's not squarely in the president's duties, but maybe it's somewhere in the periphery, somewhere on the outside of the president's power. So the court will probably reject the claim of absolute immunity because then it allows you to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue outside Trump Tower. Can't do that. But there might be a more narrow scope of immunity that can protect this president and maybe other presidents as well.

All right, but then they would have to split that atom and say the case that the Justice Department is bringing against Donald Trump on January 6th is not valid. And they'd have to provide a reason that doesn't cover any other crime, right? They'd have to be very specific in that. I don't think the court's going to want to do that, Professor. sir, I just, I don't think they're going to want to do it. No, I think the court will probably say there's immunity. Here's some very fuzzy guidelines where it applies. And lower court, go figure out what to Trump's conduct.

Yeah, but there's a significant climbing back. But that would delay it. If they rule that in June, that delays it, you know, past the election. One final question for you. And we really appreciate your time. We know how busy you are down. there in Houston. The New York civil case where the judge fined him about $400 million was obviously an abuse of the law. Any fair-minded person would say, even if Trump did all the heinous things

he did, there are no victims, nobody complained. This was a case brought by an attorney general who said, I hate Trump and I'm going to get him. But the judgment was so outrageous. that's got to go into the federal system, right? Because Trump's being denied his rights as an American. He's being punished by a state to an extent that nobody's ever seen before. Am I wrong? I don't know that an appeal can go to federal court. I mean, perhaps Trump can sue the attorney general in federal court saying that he was deprived of his rights,

but that's probably not going to go very far. The more likely course is that the appeal court might reduce the judgment. I mean, they picked this number of $300, whatever, million for a reason. Trump said, this is how much money I have. And then magically the court set that to the amount of judgment. So I think the judgment award might be decreased. But the fact that there's no victim, I think, does weigh against why was this case brought in the first place. And there's definitely an element of politics with the attorney general's decision.

But you don't see Trump having any redress in the federal system to get it out of the New York corrupt system. No, usually when you're going to. get sued by the government, you can't remove it to federal court just because you want to, because there might be unfair, and it's hard to do. No, my rights are being violated as a mayor, my constitutional rights. I'm being targeted and selected prosecution by a state that despises and wants to destroy me. That argument would not bump up to the federal level? Probably not. I think a lot of people think state court judges are biased in many ways, but we still allow them to sit in here in these sorts of cases. That's pretty frightening, and

please comment on my opinion, because now any state can destroy any citizen if they wanted to. Right. The selected prosecution should be considered on appeal within the state court system, but I don't see how Trump gets this to federal court. Look, the U.S. Supreme Court will get an appeal eventually. They're not going to touch this, so I'm not sure they'd be much better for them in federal court than in state court. That's frightening, you know, I mean, because any American could be destroyed. The attorney general doesn't like you. They can come in and just, wipe you out and nobody can help you. Hey, we really appreciate it, Professor.

Thanks very much for helping us out. I hope we can talk again. 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,

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. 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 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. This is the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Okay, I told you we have a good guest and joining us now from Denver, Colorado, as William Trackman, General Counsel of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. He is very, very familiar with the Justice Department. So, to me, a simple man just sitting here, I think the Justice Department under Merrick Garland is corrupt. Am I wrong? Well, I don't usually go out of my way to defend Merrick Garland.

He called parents' domestic terrorists and is trying to regulate your second number of rights. Here, he came off looking actually relatively well because Mr. Hurlund. testified that it was the Biden White House that tried to leverage their relationship with Merrick Garland to change his report to interfere with his findings. And it was Garland who stood up to Biden and gave him all the tools and resources he needed to complete this report. So I was impressed, at least with Mr. Hur's testimony that Merrick Garland had his back against the Biden administration, which was trying to tinker with his findings and his report. Okay, but Merrick Garland, as I mentioned had a reason to do that because if he went along with the Biden administration, he would

have been destroyed. He's already shaking. But the outcome of the Her investigation, of the FBI Russian collusion investigation, as opposed to the outcome of the Trump document, Maelago thing, that doesn't really stack to me. Does it stack to you? Well, that's the tension here, right? Because you have both political candidates having retained classified documents and shared them. And so why prosecute one but not the other? So her made a couple of key distinctions between cooperation and whether the person had really intended to take the documents and share them without being more provable with Trump allegedly than with Biden. He got hung up on this word willfully, whether he could really

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden willfully did all these things. But of course, you get no benefit just for being an old person or being a sympathetic person who's lost their son. There is tension there that's irreconcilable. And the only thing that Mr. Hur was able to say was I couldn't, in good faith, put this before a jury and be confident that I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that was the end. That was the end of his conclusion. Okay, but that's not his job. This job is to present the evidence of grand jury and they'll decide. Now, when you say willfully. I mean, to me, I shred that argument in 30 seconds. Biden had motive. The book, $8 million contract. Wouldn't you say that's motive? Oh, yes, absolutely. It goes further.

So I can't say he didn't do it willfully if he has motive, and he took the documents to write the book. Then, against federal law, he shows the documents to a civilian, his ghostwriter. Nobody's disputing that. Okay? So willfully, he willfully showed the documents to the ghostwriter. That's two willfullys right there. So how can her say he didn't willfully do it? Right.

Well, it's not just the money. It's also the... No, no, no. But my question is, how can her make the statement that Biden didn't do this willfully when I just proved that he did twice? Right. So Biden is concerned with both the money

and his place in history. but Mr. Hur concluded that he couldn't prove that this was willful beyond a reasonable doubt. What? It is willful. You could see it's willful. Anybody could see it. Well, I agree with you, but here the report is a recommendation, and he recommends Samarik Garland. I can't prove us beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's a cop out. I can. I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even an attorney. So you come back to the initial question. If it's obviously willful, whereas motive and execution are demonstrable, and special counsel says he can't prove

it is willful, the special counsel is not telling the truth. When you have a precision in authority in any department, and the person won't tell the truth, that's corruption. Am I wrong? Why don't think Mr. Heard to be classified as corrupt? I think he reached a good faith result that he thought was at least... Disagree. Well, the outcome of his extensive investigation was this. I agree with you that it seems like a strong case unwillfully. He went back again and again over the course of a five-hour testimony

saying, look, I'm just writing a report to Merrick Garland, and I don't think that you can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think the charges are warranted. But you could say that about anybody. You could say that about Charles Manson. Okay? So when the evidence is so stunning, that there's motive, there's opportunity, there's execution of a violation of federal law, and then the prosecutor says, even though that's apparent to everyone, I don't think it was willful, that's a corrupt act, in my opinion. Now, this is more of a speculation on my part, but I want to hear your opinion of it.

So Merrick Garland knows that his boss, Joe Biden's a corrupt man. to at this point. Okay, with Hunter Biden. Remember, Merrick Garland signed off on the Hunter Biden plea deal that was thrown out by a federal judge. Everybody should remember that. And the plea deal, I'm sure you would admit, is ridiculous. It was a ridiculous deal that Hunter Biden could never again be charged with any crime, even if it knew evidence was discovered. Would you see that point that the plea deal was ridiculous? Yes, and it was appropriate to throw it out for that very recently. So Merrick Garland signed off on that.

Attorney General of the United States said, that's okay with me. So you add up the evidence that was compiled against Joe Biden in the documents case, and then you go over to the Hunter Biden case, and you got Merrick Garland in charge of both cases. How could you not think that he is not a corrupt man? Well, like I said from the beginning, I'm not going to go out of my way to defend Merrick Garland. He's again, the one that had his U.S. attorneys investigate

whether parents or domestic terrorists. So this is someone who's got a track record of actually having quite a few problems in terms of due process. In this sliver of a role, it sounded like Mr. Hur was defending his lack of intervention in response to the Biden administration.

But you are absolutely right to point out these irregularities within the Justice Department about Hunter Biden, about President Trump. So we definitely have a track record of DOJ shenanigans going on. Maybe this was the exception,

but maybe it wasn't. maybe you're right, that they ought to have tried more to get to this willfully point and to at least take it to a grand jury and go forward. It is just a recommendation, after all, although I don't think Merrick Garland will be going forward against one boss. All right, Mr. Chagman, thank you very much. We really appreciate your time. We hope to talk to you again.

Thank you. Here's a gem from the No Spin News Vault. Let's bring in Senator Ted Cruz. D.C., Texas, you know, you know, Senator Cruz. Even if you don't recognize it behind a beard. Now, I ran into him a couple months ago in Washington, and he was attending the Best Friends Foundation dinner, where I was a speaker,

and Senator Cruz didn't have to do that. Okay, there were a couple of politicians there, and the Best Friends Foundation helps inner-city black kids. You know, kids who are disadvantaged, don't have a father, whatever. It's a mentoring organization. I've been with it for years. And you know me. I mean, I vet these people. So I grabbed Cruz and we chatted for a little bit, but I'm very pleased that he's on a program tonight. So let's go to the Trump situation. You see this indictment about this color of law thing? I mean, what is this? Well, sadly, Bill, you're right. It's

completely unsurprising. And we've seen over the last two and a half years of the Biden administration, we have seen an almost complete and total weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of the FBI, of the machineries of law of law enforcement. The last book I wrote is entitled, Justice Corrupted, how the left has weaponized our legal system. And it walks through how, starting with Barack Obama, the machinery of justice began directed at the opponents of the Obama White House, whether it was the IRS targeting conservatives or the FBI or the Department of Justice going after those who were political opponents. It then traces how when Donald Trump became president, many of those hardcore partisans burrowed into career positions at the Department of Justice and throughout

the federal government. And for the four years, Trump was president, they waged war against Donald Trump. They wanted to bring down the democratically elected president of the United States. now that Biden is president, they are out in the open. They are brazen. Jack Smith is someone who sadly has been involved in partisan prosecutions before. Jack Smith was involved in the prosecution of Bob McDonnell, the governor of Virginia, Republican governor, was a credible presidential candidate until DOJ went after him. They prosecuted him. They convicted him. And the case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction nine to nothing. Justice said, this is legally baseless. Governor McDonald, accepting gifts from certain people. It's what they're doing with the Supreme Court now. In the Senate, do any of your Democratic colleagues, would they agree privately that this is what is taking place? You know, sadly they wouldn't.

None of them? One of the real consequences, I think of not a one of them. Really? One of the sad consequences of the age of Trump is that it broke the Democrat Party. They hate Donald Trump so much that one of the things it's done is it's eliminated moderate Democrats. When I arrived in the Senate in 2013, there was such a thing as moderate Democrats. Today, their fury and rage of Trump have driven them to the far left. So you were talking just a minute ago about the IRS whistleblowers, multiple, long-time.

career IRS employees who risk their entire careers to come forward and say what they're seeing with this Hunter Biden investigation is corrupt, that it's a political cover up. And what they've alleged is the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, has committed multiple felonies, that he lied under oath to Congress in response to questioning from me before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that he committed obstruction of justice. And the amazing thing, Bill, not a single Senate Democrat has any interest in learning whether or not the Attorney General's committed multiple felonies because they are wearing a team jersey

I do believe that Garland will be impeached in the House okay I agree and I think that will happen in late September early October but of course he's not going to be convicted in the Senate however it'll be damaging to Garland who's not a strong man I might point out and I'm going to do this after you leave us, that Bill Barr was involved with this, a Republican, and Eric Holder, the three attorney generals. This started in 2014 with Hunter Biden. All three looked the other way. And in Garland's case, he facilitated the slow walk and helped the Biden family. But Barr,

the Republican, he knew what was happening, looked the other way. Do you agree with that? look there's no doubt that bar should have been much more vigorous in going after this uh if you look at the press repeats all the time you know david weiss the u.s attorney who's who's bringing this investigation is a quote trump appointed u.s. attorney every two seconds we hear that right that's technically true but the way it works in the senate for a u.s attorney he's the u.s attorney from Delaware he cannot get nominated unless both senators from delaware sign off there are two Democrat senators from Delaware, Tom Carper and Chris Coons, which means as a practical matter, David Weiss was chosen by the two Democrat senators. And to be clear, in the state of Delaware,

Joe Biden is the godfather, so to speak, of every Democrat. And so, look, I got to say the allegations are really significant that the way this investigation was conducted, the Department of Justice's number one objective was to protect Joe Biden. So, that the investigators were forbidden from asking about the big guy asking about money going to Joe Biden. There's no question about it. Hunter was set up as the fall guy and the Patsy, essentially. Well, Hunter took the money, and so did Jim. And where's Jim? Nothing happened to Jim. Now, one more question about politics and all. We'll get on to the Biden situation. You ran against Trump in 16, and now Trump's way had in the polls. DeSantis was thought to be a competitor,

DeSantis has not gotten off to a good start, primarily because he doesn't, it's really difficult, as you know. You went through it. I mean, to switch from a state or a Senate or the House into this massive national campaign. And Governor DeSantis is not particularly charismatic individual up against, you know, probably the most charismatic president, whether you like him or not, Trump we've ever had. In your view right now, Will Trump get this nomination? You know, I don't know. I think we have right now basically a two-man race on the Republican side. And I've got to say six months ago, the conventional wisdom was that Trump was a dead man walking that he couldn't possibly win. I thought that was wildly overstated six months ago. Right now today, the conventional wisdom is that Trump is unbeatable and it's a coronation and the race is over. I think that's overstated as well.

I think we're going to have a real primary. I am good friends with President Trump. There was no one who was a stronger ally of his when he was president than I was in the United States Senate. And I'm also good friends with Ron DeSantis. I think he's done a terrific job as governor of Florida. And I think we'll have a real race. I'm staying out of the primary. I am Switzerland on this.

Whoever wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically support because I think the agenda we're seeing from Joe Biden and the Democrats has been disastrous for the country. All right. If you're Switzerland, you got to know how to yodel. Do you know how to yodel, you know, sadly, Bill, I'm going to make a terrible admission. I actually played Max in the sound of music in high school, and I yodeled on stage. And no, I will not do it for you on your show today. All right. Now, one of the most overlooked things in this Biden situation, and it came up again today. I don't know whether you follow me or what I'm doing here in our independent news agency, which is both combination of radio and television so we have a big reach is that matthew graves the district uh the u.s attorney in uh washington and uh astrada martin astrada in los angeles central california

were both asked by weiss in delaware to help the reason was that hunter biden received money physically received it in both dc and california both both Graves and Estrada said, no. We're not helping you. Yep. Merrick Garland could have ordered them to help. That's number one, correct? Absolutely correct. Okay. Did you know, and we broke the story two weeks ago, that Matthew Graves' his wife, Fatima Graves, has visited the Biden White House 28 times since since the president was elected. Did you know that? That fact I did not know.

I followed this story very closely, but that his wife has visited the White House. I didn't know that. We broke it. There is no reason for that woman who is a left-wing activist. She heads a left-wing group to have 28 visits in the White House.

Now, you take that fact, and now I'm speculating, that Fatima Graves was the intermediary going back and forth between the Justice Department. Remember, Matthew Graves and Merrick Garland work in the same building, carrying messages and what else? Because you can't put them in writing, they'll be subpoenaed. Can't do it on the phone because they're all taped. All that calls are taped.

That's what I think was going on here. So look, I have no idea what communications were happening with Graves' wife, what I can tell you is that that Matthew Grave was a donor to Joe Biden, that Estrada in California was a donor to Kamala Harris, and that Merrick Garland, in response to questioning from me, was told, told Congress under oath that David Weiss and the prosecution would have everything it needed with no political interference, and when Graves and Estrada said no to prosecuting Hunter,

those were the most serious violations. Those were the violations that carried real jail. jail time. And they're saying no. What it meant is that even though Hunter Biden had committed multiple felonies, he got a slap on the wrist and zero jail time. Right. But it's almost unprecedented that two U.S. attorneys would turn down another U.S. attorney who's asking for help. I have never heard that before. But anyway, let's get on to Kate's law. July 1st, 2015, 32-year-old Kate Steinley, walking with her dad in the Embarcadero District of San Francisco, shot dead by an illegal criminal, Jose Zarate.

All right? Zorate subsequently put on trial. He, the jury ruled that it was an accident. He dropped a gun, blah, blah, blah. Zerate had been deported five times. He was a drug dealer. He had multiple arrests in this country. and I put forth that this should be Kate's law

where if you are deported after a commission of a crime in the United States and you come back, that's a crime in itself where you get five years minimum in a federal penitentiary. Now, that law picked up a lot of steam because I was doing the O'Reilly Factor, and you were involved with it, and it got filibustered out in the Senate because Mitch McConnell wouldn't put it up as a standalone bill.

He attached it to something else that he knew wasn't going to get by the Democrats, and it died. But now you're back, correct? You're reintroducing it? Yes. Tell me what it says. Yeah, let me start, Bill, by saying thank you for your passionate advocacy of Kate's law, because you have had a big and loud megaphone advocating for it. This is a common sense provision.

It says that people who are aggravated, felons who repeatedly enter the country illegally will face a mandatory minimum prison sentence and and it's something i've authored kate's law in the senate i've repeatedly forced a vote on the senate floor on kate's law and sadly every time we vote on it every single democrat votes no it's a straight party line vote you know i've had the opportunity to to visit with kate stanley's family her beautiful family her father kate died in her father's arms and and her last word to where dad, where daddy help me. You know, I got to say as a father, I cannot imagine a greater agony than losing your child

and feeling helpless to save your child's life. And it is indefensible that the Democrats continue to block this common sense law. Overwhelming majority of the American people support Kate's law, locking up violent criminals who repeatedly enter the country illegally. And yet, today's Democrat Party is so. extreme that they side with the criminals over innocent American citizens. Now, do you have any estimate when that vote will come up or when you'll reconcile with the House? Because I know it's in the House too, the process here.

Look, we're going to continue pressing and using the vehicles that are available to press for a vote. I hope we will get a vote. We've gotten a vote twice previously before using a lot of the Senate getting a vote is opportunistic. You've got to find a vehicle that's moving where you have an opportunity to press it forward. But I believe we'll force another vote. And the Democrats are going to have to decide where they are. I will say one dynamic that is different, which is the last time we voted on it, we had not had two and a half years of open borders under Joe Biden. We hadn't had the worst illegal immigration in our nation's history. Seven million people who've crossed illegally under Joe Biden. We hadn't had last year, 853 migrants died crossing

illegally into this country. We hadn't had hundreds of thousands or even millions of children physically and sexually assaulted by human traffickers. We hadn't had hundreds of thousands or even millions of women brutalized by human traffickers. We hadn't had what we had last year more than 100,000 drug overdoses, the highest in history, 70% of which came from Chinese fentanyl crossing our southern border. And I will say the context is different. But when we get a vote. It's going to come down to Senate Democrats. Their constituents support Kate's law, and they're going to have to decide do they stand for the safety and security of families in their states or as partisan politics, their top priority. Yeah. You know, you got to embarrass them.

And then if the 24 election, if Republicans get the White House and the Senate and keep the House, then you'll get it passed. Oh, we can't thank you enough, Senator. Very good to see you. Thank you. And check out that. Check out that. Check out that. Adam a grave story because that's I will do that yeah I mean she needs to come in front of a congressional committee and testify on what the deuce she was doing in there while our husband was up to his neck in trying to protect Hunter Biden thanks again senator we'll see you soon I hope thank you bill thank you for listening to the no spin news weekend edition to watch the full episodes of the no spin news visit bill o'reilly dot com

and sign up to become a premium or concierge member that's bill o'reilly.com sign up and start watching today