Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - March 23, 2024

Episode Date: March 23, 2024

Listen to this week's No Spin News interview with Attorney Holly Waltman, Former Department of Defense Chief of Staff, Kash Patel, and Executive Director of The American Conservative, Curt Mills. We also visit the No Spin News archives and Bill's conversation with Senator Ron Johnson. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. Georgia. So you know by now that the judge down there, Scott McAfee, told Fannie Willis that either she or her boyfriend, prosecutor, Nathan Wade, had to go. So Fannie said, well, I think Nathan's going. Nathan got fired. All right, he's out of there because he was fooling around with Fannie. It looks like on the taxpayer dime, by the way, I'm not convicting anybody, but that's what it looks like. Okay. So now this whole thing down there in Georgia, remember, this is a conspiracy case against Trump and 18 others to subvert the presidential vote in 2020. in the peach state okay it's conspiracy anyway this whole thing is in chaos but i don't know

how much chaos so um i asked for a guest in fulton county that's atlanta who knows the turf down there and holly walton who runs her own law firm joins us now from Fulton County. So, I mean, I'm sure every lawyer is watching this case very, very closely. Fannie Willis, do you know her? I mean, are you surprised about how this is going down? Well, Bill, thanks for having me. In Fulton County, unfortunately, the taxpayers and the people here and the individuals that practice law here are all too familiar with corruption and deceit and dishonesty. And for the first time in our state's history and probably our country's history, we potentially have a prosecutor who is charged with prosecutors times that happen here could potentially be facing a RICO situation or could be on the taxpayer's dime actually committing RICO offenses

while being charged with prosecuting and trying to prosecute crimes of this sort. All right, but are you surprised? I mean, I mean, when this woman was elected, did people have hopes? that she was going to be an effective prosecutor? Certainly we had hopes that that would happen. Her predecessor kept this office bogged down with corruption and just inefficiencies for over 20 years. We all had big hopes.

And, of course, prosecutors take special oaths to uphold the Constitution, to enforce laws. So am I surprised? Unfortunately, no. I think that this is a story that is told all too often here in in Georgia, particularly, but also in Fulton County specifically. And I, you know, I think it's a sad story. I think it's something that if anything can be gleamed from it or taken from it,

it is that individuals that don't have the notoriety or don't bring the attention to the cases like this one does have to endure this sort of treatment years. You feel it's fairly common in some places this kind of treatment. Okay. Okay. So do you know the offense, the defense attorney who uncovered this all Fannie Willis, boyfriend, Trips? Do you know this woman? I do. That was pretty good work by a defense attorney.

She just blew this whole case right out of the water. It's suspect now, no matter what happens, right? Yeah, and I think what was really interesting about the hearing that we saw a couple weeks ago is it's usually the state that wants to introduce evidence, wants to introduce their investigation to a judge or a jury. We almost had the opposite happen, right? We saw the defense trying over every objection to get all of this information for the judge to determine the outcome.

And we saw the state, on the other hand, objecting and trying to be the party of exclusion, not wanting to bring in witnesses, testimony, and evidence. So it was interesting to see the two sides kind of flip, and I certainly think the defense did a much better job of the offensive attacking this sort of challenge. And I think that the state did sort of a poor job of trying to keep it out. And I think that the future jurors in this case, hopefully we're watching and saw that whole thing.

Yeah, it's going to be hard to get a jury now with all this publicity down in Fulton County. I mean, it's hard enough without all this crazy stuff. The legislature in Georgia just passed a law constraining county prosecutor. Can you explain that to us so even I can understand it? Yes, certainly. So in the state of Georgia, prosecutors previously have had unlimited immunity from prosecutorial misconduct, meaning no matter what they do within their job. And remember, prosecutors are charged with either taking liberty or freedom from somebody that they believe is guilty of a crime. They have previously had complete immunity from any sort of misconduct.

misconduct. Now, this new law would allow prosecutors to be evaluated by a panel to determine whether or not there needs to be other issues taken up and other things. Now, Fannie, that she could be hauled in under this new law? Certainly. That absolutely is a possibility. And I think the timing of when this law passes. Right. The judge could have removed Fannie. but didn't and a lot of people say it's because he's running for reelection in fulting county heavily african-american and fanny has made it a racial situation and so he kind of walked its tight rope he got rid of the prosecutor because he knew that fanny was going to fire him um and not resign herself um does that sit well with you

so i certainly think that this judge has given a lot of thought any judge's job in a pretrial position is to ensure that both sides get a fair trial and also to preserve a record because at the end of this bill, if there is a verdict, one side is not going to be happy with it. So this judge is trying to make sure that this case does not again start over on appeal for some sort of decision that he made that wasn't well thought out. All right. Ms. Walman, thank you very much. We really appreciate your expertise. We'll probably bother you again as this thing gets underway if it ever does get underway. way. I mean, there are going to be so many motions. My God. But it's very kind of you to help us out.

We appreciate it very much. 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, or text bill to 998899. Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief Podcast. If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you. We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon, and on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB's Situation Report, with excellent guests, including National Security Insiders and Foreign Policy Experts. Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts, also on our YouTube channel, at President's Daily Brief.

You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. The big trial is the Jack Smith conspiracy on January 6th trial. That's the big one. It looks like they're not even going to get to that until after the election because there are so many court challenges to it. This is essentially what it is. Smith, a devoted Democrat. Not a fair man, but most prosecutors aren't fair. He says he can prove that Donald Trump incited January 6th, wanted it to happen.

I don't believe that for a second based upon my independent investigation. I don't believe it. If I were defending Donald Trump, if I were an attorney, I think I can get them off. But that's what Smith says. Okay. It'll be a jury trial. It's a federal trial. it's in DC. The jurors hate Trump and G.C. Should have been moved. Wasn't moved. That's corruption.

No way they couldn't have moved that out to West Virginia or someplace that isn't rabidly anti-Trump. They did not. Now, one of the key witnesses in this trial will be the former Defense Department chief of staff, Cash Patel. We have had him on the program before. He joins us now from Palm Beach, Florida. Florida. So just to bring everybody up to date, you were involved before, during, and after January 6th, directly involved, correct? Yes, sir. I was in the Oval Office with the president days before and I was involved on January 6th and after because I was the chief of staff for the Department of Defense. All right. When the Trump lawyers call you, let me ask this question first. Has Jack Smith or anybody from the

Justice Department contacted you. Oh yeah, I've been subpoenaed. I've appeared before their grand jury multiple times and I've got no problem with it because I just told it. You have appeared before the grand jury and told your side of the story, correct? Yes, sir. When you are testifying and you will be one of the main witnesses in the Trump conspiracy trial, what is the headline? What are you going to tell the jurors? The Truth. It's simple. Days before January 6th, I was a precipient witness firsthand in the Oval Office with the President of the United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense,

and the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States. And days before, Donald Trump authorized 10 plus thousand National Guardsmen and women. And Mr. O'Reilly, just think of it this way. How is it factually and legally possible for Nancy Pelosi, the Capitol Police, and Mayor Bowser, to reject that National Guard authorization if Donald Trump didn't authorize it? Let's stop for a minute. Is there paper that shows the president authorized the National Guard before January 6th? Is there any paper that you can produce? Well, I can't because I'm not a DOD anymore, but there's memorandums mobilizing segments of the National Guard.

So there are memorandums before January 6th. That's going to be a very powerful piece of evidence. Now, Smith and the Justice Department say you, Cash Patel, are not credible. You're in a pocket of Trump. You know they're saying that, right? Yep. And you reply? Very simply.

Put aside my testimony. Put aside what I just told you about legal and factual impossibility and move on to the January 6th committee, which I've also was subpoenaed by the first person, by the way, and testify truthfully there as well. And what do we just learn? that two years ago, a career Secret Service officer, Antonio Renato, who is an apolitical officer assigned to presidential protection, testified to the January 6th Committee that the 10,000-plus National Guard authorization before January 6th was in fact true and happened, and he responded to that

authorization internally in the White House. Why did Liz Cheney and the January 6th Committee bury that exoneration, that piece of evidence that destroys the insurrection, That's the question that people are asking now, and now the mainstream media and everybody else is pivoting. They're saying the logic doesn't make sense. Donald Trump's guilty of insurrection because he did not order the domestic deployment of the United States military. They've completely lost the logic. By law, he had to get the permission of the mayor of D.C. Bowser, who said publicly, she turned him down.

Pelosi denies even knowing about the request. Do you think you have evidence to prove that Pelosi is lying? Look, we sent the Secretary of the Army immediately after that our authorization days before to the Capitol Police who respond and work for Nancy Pelosi. Again, don't believe me. That conversation happened. The Capitol Police were- Well, is it a conversation or is it an in-writing request?

To the Capitol Police or the refusal? Yes. To the Capitol Police. We sent the Secretary of the Army immediately in person. Whether he sent a memorandum after that, we'll have to check the department. All right. So the Secretary of the Army is going to have to testify to that. But Pelosi is saying, well, somebody told me, but be that as it may.

Let's get back. But there's one point. Go ahead. On the Capitol Police, they published their own memorandum reciting the sequence of events before and on January 6th. And in their own memorandum, they rejected in writing the authorization. of the National Guard. Okay, but they don't mention Pelosi in it.

I know about that manner. Now, get back to your Liz Cheney question. Clearly, Liz Cheney didn't want a fair hearing on the January 6th committee. That's clear. She wanted to condemn Donald Trump, and she knew her media allies would print everything she said,

and anything that was exculpatory would be ignored. So Liz Cheney had no... You know, she had covered to do this dishonest thing, which she did, in my opinion. She did, however, mention your testimony way, way down in the transcript, correct? I think they cited it, but they also precluded the evidentiary documents I've talking to you about, even though they had an agreement to incorporate that into the final report. They excluded Mayor Bouser's written. They excluded the documents from the Capitol Police.

Now, you wrote a book last September, came out the same time killing witches came out, my book, called Government Gangsters, the Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy. So I want to alert people that everything that you're telling me today is in the book. All right, you say that it's pretty much organized crime running the country from Washington. Is that an overstatement by you? Look, again, it's the same M.O. from Russiagate, which I exposed and talked about in the book as a chief investigator, instead of the executive branch withholding evidence of innocence. Now we have the legislative branch performing the same operation in Liz Cheney and the Jan 6 committee. And we put the receipts in that book, which is why the Joe Biden administration wormholed it for 10 months and blocked its release. There's got to be a reason I have to take them to federal court to sue. So again, you can believe me, but the truth is in their own written word. And that's the most powerful evidence. And we got it. Well, I do believe you. If I didn't, I would be tearing your throat out right now. I do. But I'm not sure that a jury in Washington, D.C. will examine the evidence in a fair way. I would be surprised if they did. It looks to me like the fixes in on this

one from the beginning until the trial. Last word. I think you're absolutely right. Look, I used to be a national security prosecutor at the Department of Justice. And this is the definition of forum shopping. They could have moved this case to Kansas, Kentucky, even Connecticut, for crying out loud. But they knew they would have the best judges for the radical left agenda to advance this disinformation campaign of insurrection in Washington, D.C. And so they put it right there. it's ironic that the Department of Justice is railroading a two-tier system of justice through Washington, but Donald Trump, I believe, is exposing that corruption every day. Well, we'll see. Do you ever talk to Trump, by the way?

Frequently. I'm as senior advisor, so we have some conversation. If you're the senior advisor, that would mean you would talk to them. All right, Cash. We really appreciate you, Tom. Thanks very much for your work, and we'll have you back. I hope. Thanks again. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size.

Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. 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 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. Nine House Republicans voted against the measure condemning Russia for abducting Ukrainian children. The measure says, and this is symbolic, it holds the government of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Vladimir Putin responsible for the wrongful and illegal kidnapping of children from Ukraine and officially condemns those actions in the strongest terms. That's a House resolution. Why would you vote against that? Why? Well, here are the people who did. Congressman Andy Biggs, Arizona, Eric Burleson, Missouri,

Warren Davison, Ohio, Marjorie Taylor Green, Georgia, Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Thomas Massey, Kentucky, Matt Rosendell, Montana, Chip Roy, Texas, Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin. Okay, so my staff contacted every single office. Everyone. Why'd you vote against it? It won't tell us. No public statements, no tweets, no Twitters, no Facebooks, whatever it is. So they just vote against it and then they're disrespectful to people who call up and say why. Oh. I joining us now as a man who may know, It's Kurt Mills, the executive director of the American Conservative, coming on us from Washington, D.C. All of the people on this list are conservative. Assume it has something to do with Ukraine, but I don't know.

Do you know why they voted against it? Yeah, I mean, I think it was potentially a bit of a throwaway resolution, and it is possible that some of the members overlooked the details here. But I do think it shows more than anything the sort of headwinds that Speaker Johnson is facing in trying to get new Ukraine. funding here. The level of skepticism of the narrative around the Ukraine-Russia war, at least among the Republican rank-and-file, and this is Aiden abetted, frankly, by the presumptive Republican nominee, is so dramatic at this point that they doubt things like fatality totals or narratives around alleged Russian kidnapping. Okay, but no sane person could doubt that

the Russians have committed atrocities and war crimes in Ukraine. The evidence is overwhelming they have. Why do you think if these people are proud of their stance not to fund Ukraine, why wouldn't they answer and explain? I think they would just submit that it feeds into the narrative that puts us on this hawkish doom loop. I think it's a fair critique that they should have answered

your criticisms or at least answered your inquiry. And I think that you're at a point where the muscle memory is that, you know, they have certain members of Congress who are just automatically voting no on anything that is seen as furthering this war. If you were in the House, you wouldn't have voted no on this. I know you wouldn't have. I'm not elected member of Congress, but no, I don't see the point. And indeed, there are, there were members of Congress such as Congressman Gates who either,

I don't know if he voted yes or he did not, he was not part of your list. And so I don't, yeah, Matt Gates, I meant, yeah, Matt Gates. I meant. Yeah, Matt Gates. No, he didn't. He didn't. Look. Yeah, my point was that essentially there are Ukraine skeptical members of Congress who did not vote for this, and that seems to be most prudent. Yeah. People should be skeptical of Ukraine. But the Republican Party and conservative movements divided on the issue. Yeah. And, you know, historically, conservatives have supported blunting to. totalitarians like Putin. Historically, if you go all the way back to World War I, the isolationist movement in the conservative community has always been less than the isolationist movement in the

liberal community, always, all throughout history. But now it's emerging in 2024 that the isolationist movement is more prominent in conservatives circles than liberal. And that's a change, a big change. Well, I don't want to debate the essential nature of the facts set there, but I do think there, I don't really like the term isolationist myself. I think there have been skeptical voices throughout the last hundred years of American foreign policy that have transcended partisan alliances on both sides. And so, I mean, there was conservative opposition to World War I and even World War II. off until Pearl Harbor, effectively. And so this is, in some senses, a recrudescence or a

restoration of the old party of the 1920s. Okay. So we got to deal with reality here, and the Democratic Party is united. They vote en masse and block, no dissenters. We've explained why on this broadcast that if you are a Democrat in the House and you go against what the Democrats want, they cut off your money. That's Nancy Pelosi. Did it for years. So whatever Biden wants, the Democrats are going to vote for it, almost 100% down the line. Republicans are not like that. They have different factions, and they're not united. How big an advantage is that, in your opinion, for the Democrats? Well, I think it's a healthier political party when the, you know, the dialogue is in essentially North Korean, like you described.

I do think there is some advantage for the Democrats, maybe in the short to medium term, but let's say if the Ukraine war actually becomes quite unpopular as the year goes round. I mean, I think this is quite similar to 2004 in some ways in which you have a war that does have some bipartisan support, but it's clearly, clearly championed by a partisan White House. And if it gets pretty bad in September, October, November, this could become a net liability for Biden. And the fact that they don't have an open dialogue about it means that they actually can't course correct this quickly. But right now, all the polls show that most American voters support blunting Putin. This isn't about Ukraine.

This is about Putin and letting Putin win. And Putin is relying upon the fractious nature of our democratic government to wear us down. That's obviously his strategy. And he believes that he will. And then he'll march into whatever he wants in Ukraine. Moldova will be next or Lithuania or whoever. Putin's not going to stop. And then China will be emboldened to go into Taiwan.

That theory, and it is a theory, is pretty... pretty well borne out by history. I mean, and the sort of question is, does the United States want to leave the defense of Ukraine at this point? I mean, I would vote for continuing to give military arms to Ukraine. That's what I would vote for. Not forever. You'd have to see progress on the battlefield.

But at this point, if you let Putin win, it's going to cost us much, much more money down the road. My own personal view is I think we needed an armist yesterday. I mean, Crimea has effectively been under de facto Russian control for 10 years. It looks like Russia is going to successfully annex these territories. The risks of Russia actually going into further territories like Odessa, which they are increasingly attacking, I think is something that the Biden administration needs to take very seriously. I think everybody should cut their losses here and call it a day.

In terms of prioritization, I mean, look, I think you have to look. I think you have to look at why candidates like Trump, Biden, and Obama, who have all urged for the U.S. to be less engaged in the world, more or less, over the last 15 years, have been the successful winners at the ballot box, which is that Americans look around at their relatively deteriorating neighborhoods at their home states and don't see why we should pick winners and losers in every theater in the world. I take your point that Russia is very important, but if that logic held Absolutely. I mean, should the U.S.

were just, we apparently got the boot this week from Niger. Should we really be contesting the Russians in Niger? Where do we draw the line? Well, you draw the line on countries that don't matter, like Niger. But Taiwan matters. The chip industry there alone would cripple the United States for at least a year if the Chinese went in and took it over. TikTok aside, I mean, that's way more important.

So I think you don't take the risk. You don't embolden the totalitarians. you fight them as much as you can without being ridiculous the deterioration of American neighborhoods is because of corruption in the state and local governments not the federal government

so anyway that's where I stand on it and I think I'm right final question Donald Trump's not a conservative you know that and if you don't read my book the United States of Trump he's never been a conservative he couldn't even tell you

what the conservative philosophy is he's a deal maker But his supporters are largely right and ultra-right. They love him. Does it bother you as the director of the American conservative that Trump really isn't conservative? Do you think he's not nationalist or populist or center-right, though? No, I think he's populist.

I think he's center-right for practical reason. The best thing that Trump did in his four years outside of running the economy efficiently was the appointments to the Supreme Court. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would have loaded it up with liberal judges and you think it's bad now in the neighborhoods? What's happening to New York City right as we speak, because I'm here, would be happening all over the country if Hillary Clinton had won and appointed those Supreme Court justices. But Trump didn't.

He appointed traditional right-leaning judges, and they're saving the country right now. But as a doctrinaire, Trump couldn't care less about conservative thought. I think it's a fair point. I do think he is instinctually conservative, though. And I always think the Trump years have to be juxtaposed with the years that he succeeded in the conservative movement, which was the Bush years. And I think Trump looks at the open borders, free trade, you know, sort of imperial form. policy and he sees that as an approach that does not preserve the way of life that he came up in in the 60s 70s 80s and even early 90s.

Do you think the thought goes that deep, huh? Because Trump despises the Bush family, the Romney's of the world, the McCain's of the world, the so-called moderate Republicans, but they're all conservative. Bush, Romney, McLean, they're all conservative. Trump has no use for them at all. None. Agreed. Agreed. I mean, I do think the thought goes deep enough. If you go back to when he was originally floating for running for president in 1987 or 1988, he appears on Oprah Winfrey's show, and he was just saying the exact same thing then. And that was juxtaposed at the Reagan administration. The jobs were going over she's were getting ripped off in trade. He was wondering about Japan,

not China, then. I do think there's more ideological consistency there that he gets credit for. All right. We appreciate a good discussion. Kurt, thanks for helping us out. And we'll talk again, I hope. Book Club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday.

It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. 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 Podcast, Spotify,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Here's a gem from the No Spin News Vault. We're supposed to have Senator Ted Cruz on tonight. I'm going to deal with that in a final thought. We do expect them next week. But we were lucky, and I use that word literally, enough to get Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, to comment on my column that I wrote yesterday

and the investigations by the House. First, I have to ask you, you are the, ranking member of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, which I think is the most important Senate committee in existence, because you have oversight on corruption, okay? And you're the second ranking member. If the Senate goes to the Republicans in 24, you'll be the chairman. The chairman now is Richard Blumenthal, the liberal Democrat from Kentucky. He doesn't want any part of this Biden stuff, correct? No, he doesn't. And last time we were in the majority, I was chairman of the full committee,

the committee in Homeland Security Government Affairs. I was working with Senator Grassley, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and we were investigating Hunter Biden. We did not have, I did not have the support of my Republican colleagues on my committee, or we didn't have the support of our conference to, for example, subpoenaed the Bidens thought it was too political in 2020. Why didn't the Republicans on your committee support you in issuing the subpoenas? They thought it was too political during a political campaign.

So they thought the American people would see it as a political thing and go against the Republican Party, that's it? Right. We issued our report in September of 2020. It was widely ignored by the media, but all through 2020, both Senator Grass and I were accused by the media by our Democrat colleagues of soliciting and disseminating Russian disinformation even though our report was completely based on U.S. records, treasury records,

suspicious activity reports. In September 2020, we laid out the vast web of foreign financial entanglements, the millions of dollars of transactions with CEFC, Burisma, Russia. We pretty well laid this out. The house is building on the record we provided, but the FBI was completely unhelpful. They sabotaged our efforts as well. Unbelievable. So have you ever talked to Blumenthal about, I know there's a collegiality in the Senate, and it should be? I mean, you guys need to talk to each other, and you know, you don't want to be yelling at each other. It's not the Civil War, the war up to the Civil War. But have you ever talked to Blumenthal and say, look, you know, just for the American people's sake, let's try to clarify all of these unanswered questions about the Biden family finances. Have you said that to him?

Senator Blumenthal wrote an article that the Washington Post ran in 2020, again, accusing us of soliciting Russian disinformation and said that I was... He hasn't changed his mind. He literally said the CIA thought I was so dangerous. They wouldn't even brief me. They wouldn't brief us because we'd already been briefed, for example, on Andre Taloshenko. So, no, Bill, throughout 2020, the media, our Democrat colleagues were interfering in our... Then the FBI were interfering in our investigation. And nothing's changed.

Disclosing what was happening to the Bidens. Nothing's changed, even though we have whistleblowers. We have nothing's changed at all, nothing. They still, they don't, not interested, right? Right. Okay. Now, did you know about Fatima Graves, the wife of the U.S. attorney that we uncovered has visited the Biden White House 28 times, and her husband Matthew Graves refused to cooperate

with the U.S. attorney. Delaware on the Hunter Biden situation. Did you know about Fatima Graves? That was your scoop and that's why we need an investigative reporters like yourself to help us, we need the whistleblowers. And we are fortunately getting more and more whistleblowers. We have people like you that are digging up this information, building on the evidence the Senator Grassland put out there, but Bill, there's literally three scandals here. You have the Biden family corruption, you have the corruption of the FBI Department of Justice, And then you, of course, have the corruption of the complicit and corrupt mainstream media,

who won't cover this story. You know, it is very troubling to people, and I'm going to take ideology out of this. I mean, we want an honest country. It's beyond any reasonable doubt the FBI has been corrupted. Beyond any reasonable doubt, they have been corrupted. And now you have the media. There's nothing anybody can do about the media because the First Amendment protects the media. the corporations have taken it over, and independent journalists like me have to do the heavy

lifting now because the corporations order their people not to. And there's nothing anybody can do about that, but you can do stuff about the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland. So this brings me to impeachment. You have access to the Republican-controlled House. Is that bubbling up impeachment against Merrick Garland? I think it's a real possibility. We're going to have to sort out who's telling the truth between David Weiss and Merrick Garland when Merrick Garland said that he had complete authority. And then David Weiss, of course, wrote two letters to Jim Jordan that are also contradictory that in one case said that he had full authority and then he hedges his bets on June 30th.

The problem, bill, is that the process has been set up. procedures within FBI and Department of Justice to basically insulate themselves from scrutiny. You said it earlier in your opening there. They always use the excuse, well, there's an active investigation so we can't share this information with Congress. We were frustrated because we had the John Durham investigation, and so we couldn't get the documents that we had subpoenaed Christopher Ray to turn over, even though the President of the United States, Donald Trump, wanted those documents turned over. So, again, the Department of Justice, the FBI, have insulated themselves from effective scrutiny. And how do you investigate the premier investigatory agency of the United States?

It's the only body that can do it. How do you hold accountable, the chief law enforcement department? Let me offer this, let me offer this, because I know you talk to Comer and Jordan and all of those people. You've got a situation where Merrick Garland, under oath, tells the House, look, I gave Wife's full authority in this investigation. He's under oath saying that, right? Two U.S. attorneys were requested in writing.

Matthew Graves, who's we referred to with his wife, Fatima, going to the White House 28 times, and Martin Estrada in California, because there are allegations that Hunter Biden received foreign money in both of those places. Weiss asked both of those U.S. attorneys to cooperate, partner with him. They refuse. Merrick Garland could have ordered them to cooperate.

Merrick Garland is their boss. That's where you go. That's how you get Garland. Now we also have the IRS whistleblower, you know. Okay, wait, wait, wait. Well, let's get to that in a moment. Okay. Because Garland's hanging out there now.

You see what I mean? this is what frustrates me. He's hanging out there saying, oh, no, Weiss had full authority when he himself could have ordered those two men to cooperate with Weiss and did not. Now, cover up is the reason I mentioned, the reason I mentioned Shepley is he has, he was in the meetings where basically Weiss said, I don't have the authority. So we've got it, I think enough evidence that the House should hold hearings, impeachment hearings, not only on Garland.

They ought to hold impeachment hearings on Mayorkas and also on Anthony Blinken who lied to my investigators when he said he never emailed Hunter Biden. You know, Bill, there is so much here to really hang these guys on. But unfortunately, I lost my chairmanship.

We don't have the subpoena authority. And as you said, you know, Blumenthal, Wyden, these folks have no interest in Gary Peters. They have no interest in investigating this. So we have to rely on the house. And by way, We're working with Comer and Jordan to provide what information we know to help them prepare for their interviews. Now, the key question of all of this is I wrote in my column, and again, I hope people go and take the time to read the column on bill o'Reilly.com.

The real important thing is whether or not, and I want to emphasize the two words or not, vice president Biden then vice president Biden derived money from his son and brothers activities did he get money I don't see a smoking

gun yet do you have one I see smoke okay for example you know we have emails from Hunter where he's emailing his daughter saying that unlike pop I won't make you give me half your salary

Yeah, but that could be hyperbole. You know him. I understand. Again, it's smoke. The other thing is, you know, this John Solomon reported this. You know, the vice president reported making $16 million once he left office. But then his financial disclosure, he only disclosed his assets of $3.2 million. Where did the money go?

And he also doesn't tell us exactly where that $16 million came from. I mean, could that be some of the money that was disclosed in those 1023? Well, I got to get a subpoena. for that so again we have we have plenty of smoke out there right we have a smoking gun not yet but there's not been a thorough investigation there would you do me would you do me a favor and so i know you're busy but sometime today if you can get coma and jordan's attention would you please tell him to subpoena thadamagraves the wife of matthew graves the u.s attorney in Washington and ask her under oath what the do she's doing in the white house 28 times i mean what is absolutely

Listen, if I were doing the investigations, I would have subpoenaed a lot more people than have been subpoenaed so far. But again, they want to get the documents before the interviews. You know, these investigations, it's a process. It takes time. I know. I know. But when you have that coincidence that the word conduit, you see, they're never going to put this stuff in writing. But if this woman is carrying information from the Justice Department, remember, her husband works with Merrick Garland.

in the same building in D.C. She's carrying information from them over to Biden and then Biden administration back to the Justice Department. I mean, come on. Bill, it's the exact same thing Anthony Blinken used his wife for. She was the one emailing Hunter Biden, but Anthony Blinken slipped up and emailed Hunter himself when it came to Blue Star Strategies and some of the Burisma thing.

So again, it's a tried and true method that they use, you know, their spouses to be the conduit. So, no, I will definitely bring your column up to the attention of Comer and Jordan. Yeah, we sent it to him, but I know everybody's busy, but you got to, now is it time to focus on this thing. I mean, really micro this thing. As you know, I think you know, the Democratic Party is really worried about this. They're really worried that Biden's going to get taken down by this. Well, they should be worried, but again, they can always rely on the mainstream media, the complicit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you can get a right. As I said, if you impeach Merrick Garland, they have to cover that story. And then all of the evidence against Merrick Garland is put forth into the public arena. That's how you do it. Right. Impeachment hearings are very important. You want to have the lay the predicate have as much documentation before those hearings. And that's what they're trying to attain.

All right. You know, Senator, it's very nice of you to come on. We know how busy you are. You're welcome any time. I'm going to stay honest because, look, it's my job. I know the other media doesn't do their job anymore. I understand the corruption in the media. It's unprecedented in this country right now. But we're going to stay on it. And it's very nice of you to give my audience. And remember, our audience is worldwide now, Senator. We got 300

radio stations. We got direct TV. We got the first. We got distribution on Facebook. I mean, we're a colossus now. And I don't think people in Congress understand that. So we want to funnel information through somebody who doesn't answer to Comcast or Warner Brothers Discovery or CBS. I don't answer to anybody. And that's what we want to do. And it's very, very, and you're a patriot for coming on explaining your point of view to the American people. We really appreciate it. I understand. I appreciate your efforts. We need more investatory journalists. We need more whistleblowers. We need people to come forward with the truth. You need a John Dean inside the Biden White House.

That's what you need. But I don't know if that'll ever happen. All right, Senator, we'll talk again soon. I hope thank you very much. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the No Spin 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. Thank you.