Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - May 20, 2023

Episode Date: May 20, 2023

Listen to this week's No Spin News interview with the Center for Immigration's Dr. Steven Camarota, Next News Network host Gary Franchi and psychiatrist Dr. Vanessa Cutler We also visit the No Spin News archives and Bill's conversation with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. In Florida, U.S. District Judge T. Kent Weatherill has put a stay on the Biden administration releasing illegal migrants without a court date. The judge has scheduled another hearing for May 19th, but right now is a federal order that the Biden administration can't release migrants who cross over without a court date for them to appear. And, of course, the Border Patrol and the people down there, and they can't do that. So that's in play, too. So let's bring on our guess. He's Dr. Stephen Camerata.

You might have seen him on The Factor and then on the No Spin News. I've used them quite often. He's a director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a fair man, and he knows what he's talking about, he joins us from Northern Virginia. So why do you think the surge went down the last few days? Well, first of, we really usually wait longer to get the numbers because it takes a while to put them all together. So let's be cautious. The second thing is two days is not really a trend. Remember, since President Biden came to office, they've reported at least through like April, you've had over five million apprehensions or what they now call encounters at the

border. So we're at record levels. It could be you can have a little dip or a little increase at any one time. But the scale, even so far this year, appears to be record setting or near record setting. And remember, because they take so much time processing people at the border, we know that the number of people which they often call gotaways, the people they see but can't apprehend, they tend to be running at record levels. So it's just possible maybe they stop some fewer people. It doesn't mean fewer people came. In fact, the evidence probably suggests that's not what happened. Some of the Reporteis says that the Board of Officials are giving migrants cards with instructions to apply for asylum by phone.

And they're telling them, you apply for asylum, you don't come here, you can get it on a phone, you'll get an appointment, then you can come here legally. But if you don't do that and we catch you, then we put your name on a list that you don't come back for five years, because that's what happened. Once Title 42 ran out, if now if you come in without permission and they deem you to go back to Mexico, you can't come back for five years. Nobody's going to enforce any of that, of course. It's the Biden administration, not going to enforce it.

that's what the reportage is that people now are trying to get appointments to come here by using the phone and texting or emailing the immigration authorities for an appointment. Have you heard about that? Right. So they have this app and you're supposed to try to pre-apply for asylum to expedite things, to expedite your release. If you don't use it, you try to sneak in and they catch you, then the idea is, well, then we're not going to consider your claim. Now, there's no evidence they're actually doing this, partly because the app itself, it's not clear it even work. They're still releasing enormous numbers of people.

All the available evidence suggests that it's not going to make much difference, partly because they are going to still release people. They're not going to enforce it. There's going to be, obviously, what we're seeing is a lot of people slip past the border patrol. And also, remember, they've created this other avenue through parole for select countries. Now, I think, and a lot of other people think, that they're abusing this parole. authority by letting people directly in from places like Venezuela and Haiti and some others. But that's another way in which we're admitting people not really legally and they can join

the illegal population. But here's one other thing, Bill, just to remind your listeners, Title 42 is this provision that let us send people right back to Mexico as a public health emergency because of COVID. But the thing is, the Biden administration had largely scaled that so far back. They were only using it in a limited way anyway. They didn't do it. They didn't do it. Right.

Yeah. That's an excellent point. So there was on the books that didn't enforce, they haven't enforced anything, and that's why we have, we have. With this tremendous number of people in the last two years since Biden's been in office, coming into the United States, in your opinion, what is the biggest downside for Americans living in this country? What is the biggest headline?

headline these people coming in on a negative level. Right. On a sort of philosophical level, it's the rule of law, right? For a country to work, to have a democracy, you vote elected officials in, they make laws and then they're enforced, and they matter. If the laws don't matter, then you don't really have a functioning republic. So that's probably the most important thing. And if you have a situation where the illegal immigrant population, we can't say for certainty, has grown by two or three million, and that's taking into account, all the people who go home all the time or get legal status.

So since President Biden's come in, we have this kind of unprecedented growth in the illegal immigration. It's an enormous slap in the face to everybody who plays by the rules, but also for the rule of law. The other big things are for taxpayers. Each illegal immigrant certainly costs us money, not because they're lazy, not because they all came to get welfare, but the average educational attainment of an illegal immigrant is very modest.

They tend to earn modest wages, and they tend to use a fair amount in public services. particularly once they have children. The other big downside is for American workers. Most Americans are more educated and don't compete with illegal immigrants, but there are about 25 million Americans who work in the sectors where illegals are concentrated. Construction, building, cleaning, and maintenance, groundskeeping, retail, hospitality, and they tend to be relatively low-paying jobs, not everyone, but mostly,

and these are America's poorest workers, least educated. So what immigration really does is kind of kick the poor in the teeth. Again, most Americans don't face the job competition, but those that do are the most vulnerable. But why would somebody hire an illegal migrant over an American who wanted to do the landscaping or the agricultural work or clean the hotel rooms? Why would they do that? Right. So remember, agriculture is largely not in this discussion. Less than 1% of the 160 million people in the U.S. workforce are in agriculture. And illegal immigrants, there might be five, 600,000 working there out of the eight or nine million working in the United States.

So it's a relatively small portion. Why would illegal immigrants do better? One is social networks. The employer already has a lot of their co-ethnics, so it's easy. Some jobs, if you don't speak Spanish, you don't get. Oftentimes the immigrants might be, and there's some evidence for this, particularly at the bottom end of the labor market, be willing to work for less. So that would give them one up. employers might just be prejudiced, think the immigrants are better, and let's face it, there are significant social problems among the least educated American workers.

We know that the fraction of people say who only have a high school education or didn't even graduate high school, if we look at the working age, the share working has been declining for decades, and that reflects a lot of social problems. But one of the things that's happened is wages at the bottom end of the labor market long term in the last 40 years are actually jobs pay much less. and that's undermined work but there are we have welfare and disability policies we have that undermine work we also have an opioid epidemic that's undermining work we don't really have that expectation there's a lot of things going on at the bottom i got i got it so all right okay steven keep an eye on a situation uh thank you very much for your expertise and uh look we're not anti migrant here and i've said it many times if i are poor uh in Mexico. I try to sneak in here and get as much money and send it back to my kids and my

wife in Mexico. I would. But Stephen made the best point. We don't have law in this country. It's not enforced. We don't have a Republican. And right now, the Biden administration and many, many big cities don't enforce the law. 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. of politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between. It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.

Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast. Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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. in 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. You're listening to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So join us now is Gary Franchi from Chicago, who is the lead anchor on Next News Network. First of all, I'm going to give you a big plug at the top. Tell me what Next News Network is. Well, we're an independent online news channel on YouTube that combats the false narratives that are constantly being peddled by the mainstream media, by the leftist media, and, of course, those in the halls of power in Washington, D.C.,

and we have a we have a lot of fun doing it okay so you're youtube based and you're a for-profit organization correct that's correct and how long have you guys been in motion we've had this channel on youtube for about 10 years now wow yeah so you've seen significant changes in a shift away from the traditional television news outlets into the alternatives correct oh there's no question there's been a massive shift especially following the 2016 election our channel received 70 million views in just one month towards the end of the election and it represented see a lot of the mainstream networks were still focused on basic broadcasts and cable content where we were simply focused and always have been focused on online content so the shift we clearly saw as the algorithm back then was wide open people were flocking in into the online spaces like YouTube to secure information and news so they could become aware of what's happening in the country and also get narratives that they weren't getting from the mainstream sources. So we saw a dramatic shift in 2016.

And that is just accelerated up to 2023 or not? Has it leveled out? Well, after 2016 there was a dramatic shift in the algorithm. We saw the leftist media. We saw We saw Donald Trump even come out and start using the term fake news that Hillary and Obama had started to use. You know, Trump came on co-opted that term. There was a significant algorithmic shift. There was a panic that set in because we came in through the back door. We were there. We were presenting information.

And it caused all of the individuals in the media to try to find a way to point fingers. How did this happen? Everyone's looking to point fingers except for Hillary Clinton looking at the mirror. So they shifted the algorithm so that the YouTube videos, if you were to search for Donald Trump or conservative news, it would only surface what they then deemed authoritative content. So now the algorithm has been manipulated so that the narratives can be controlled by the corporate masters, if you will, who are in those same newsrooms you were talking about who would control you. But how can YouTube allow censorship, which is basically what you're saying? How can they allow, well, it's their corporate platform. You know, when you have people like Adam Schiff who are sending letters to YouTube and Facebook saying there's content on your platform that's dangerous and harmful, then all of a sudden, despite the fact that they have 230 protections, YouTube and Facebook and all these platforms, they freak out.

They go, okay, we don't want to be dragged before Congress, so they go ahead and they shift their algorithmic reach. And also, I do believe that there, I mean, the Silicon Valley we're talking about here. You know, this is the, you know, there's so many leftists in that, in Silicon Valley, in the software world, that they are happy to control the narrative, especially if you look at what Project Veritas, when they broke that story and they had a Google executive who had came out and they, you know, got them a little, a little. tipsy and he says we can't afford another Trump situation. Yeah, I understand his ideology, but your operation hasn't been censored by YouTube. Mine hasn't. I mean, we send clips to YouTube and they don't, they just put them up and, you know, we're responsible here. We're not doing crazy stuff here. Well, we've had during the pandemic and, of course, the post-election, we had many videos that were removed from YouTube. We had videos that reached 10, oh yeah, we had

one video that had 10 million views that was pushing back against Dr. Fauci and the medical narrative that was being pushed by the World Health Organization. That is you investigate why they removed that? I mean, I understand a public health component. They say, this is propaganda or whatever. Let me rephrase a question. Right now, as it stands, because we've had a lot of exposure on the FBI going up to Twitter, all of that. right now, are you under any censorship guidelines? We have a terms of service at YouTube that we have to strictly abide by. And what is, give me an example of that?

Well, there's certain things you just cannot speak about on YouTube. You can't talk about, you know, the effectiveness of a certain medication that has, you know, been mandated by the federal government. You can't question the results of certain elections. And those are two off-limits, topics. Okay. And as a result. They still are, again, that's not our experience, but we don't get into that very much. I mean, we're pretty straight in our reporting.

And then my commentary is based on fact-based. We've never had a problem at all. Let me ask you about Carlson now. So Joe Rogan has made millions of dollars doing his podcast, right? Rogan. Oh, yeah. You're familiar with him. Absolutely.

And he's not censored. He's out there and he does his podcast and people find his podcast, right? Well, to be clear, he was on YouTube for quite some time and then he signed a contract with Spotify because he felt that the censors at YouTube were too constricting. Okay. So now he's on Spotify and people find him and his podcast and they watch it. He advertises, he monetizes it. Is that what Carlson's going to do? the Rogan model?

Well, it's kind of curious that what we've seen last from Carlson, his last video 130 million views on Twitter. The fact that he decided to make Twitter his home base, I find kind of curious because Twitter is not really known for presenting itself as a video show platform. That's true, but he has a relationship with Musk and you gotta figure that they have a template that they're gonna run out.

Twitter. You got to figure it, right? Oh, exactly. There's going, so this could be a groundbreaking beginning for a new birth of media presentation and distribution on Twitter that we haven't seen before, where an actual show presents itself exclusively on that platform. Very, very groundbreaking. Okay.

I think that's what's going to happen. But no matter what happens, the information flow is going away from the traditional people, and it's their own fault. into you and me and Carlson or Rogan, wherever it may be. Hey, Gary, we appreciate it. Keep us. If you get censored, Gary, by the way, let us know about it. That's an interesting story, okay? We were just demonetized in February, so we've lost all of our YouTube revenue.

Well, that's not good. You got another home you're gunning for? Well, we're going to keep on keeping on here, Bill. All right. I wish you the best, Gary. Thanks for coming on. and the people behind the headlines. I'm Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist

and the host of the brand new podcast, Podforce One. Every week I'll sit down for candid conversations with Washington's most powerful disruptors, lawmakers, newsmakers, and even the president of the United States. These are the leaders shaping the future of America and the world. Listen to Podforce One with me, Miranda Devine, every week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. You don't want to miss an episode.

This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So I got me into thinking that kids, it's harder to be a child now than any other time in American history in my opinion, my humble opinion. I wouldn't want to be an urchin now. So I looked around for somebody who really knows this world and joining us from Albany, New York, is Dr. Van Gogh. Vanessa Cutler, she's a psychiatrist, MD, works for children. Progressive education now outlawed in the state of Florida, other states doing it as well. But it's common in New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, other progressive states. Do you have any opinion on that?

Well, you know, I think that, you know, when we talk about some of these issues, you know, from the perspective of the child psychiatrist, you know, we have to talk really about how some of these issues are going to affect children, whether or not exposure to some of these issues are developmentally appropriate, and how they might contribute to stress levels in children. Okay, but you're not, you dodge the question. So these are 10-year-olds, and in this book that they're given them, there are descriptions very vivid of sexual activity, 10 years old.

It's not the birds and the bees. It's all kinds of alternative techniques. I mean, to me, as a parent, I don't want that. Yeah, and it seems like there definitely is cause for concern, I mean, particularly amongst the parents of these fifth graders who are around age 11. You know, discussions about sex should be held with parents, with pediatricians, and also with the school. But parents should also be involved in those discussions.

They should lead. Parents should lead, right? I would imagine. Well, they're critical, you know, they definitely are critical stakeholders here. And I think that it sounds to me that there is, you know, a group of parents who maybe were not heard. or not educated about this before it happened. It's an extremely liberal school, so I'm going to cut through it and say the parents send their kids to that kind of a school,

they want that. So children get confused, you know that. I mean, you're a pro, this is what you do. They get confused about life because they can only process certain amount of things. You stair step these things. Instead, there's an indoctrination in some places to convince the child that everything is okay,

libertine conduct is fine, abortion is fine, you know, and I'm saying that I don't oppose the governments of the states to say no. And I know there are derelict parents, irresponsible parents, and that's a big problem in the United States, absolutely is. But people like you, I mean,

you're the last line of defense, doctor. I mean, you gotta speak up. and say, look, you've got to do this in a way that's responsible. I think this is just really irresponsible. Yeah, I think, again, we have to always really approach a lot of these issues based on what the literature, the medical literature, says. And frankly, a lot of these issues currently are unprecedented, as we're now experiencing them and as children are experiencing them.

Yeah, we've never seen this kind of stuff before, and it's a progressive wave. What about pot? Legalization of marijuana, as I predicted long time ago, made it a lot easier for children to access marijuana. And the signal that it sends is okay. It's okay to do it. And we gave the stats yesterday. There's a new study out. I hope you'll read it where the emergency rooms with the kids going in and the pot addiction with the rehabs. They're all through the roof. So the message to children, again, intoxication, don't worry about it. It's not that big a deal. Are you seeing that? Oh, yes. I mean, I see quite a lot of this. And again, have been seeing, you know, this for a very long time.

You know, really what is quite interesting and what is kind of new research recently is actually the effect of cannabis on the record team user. We have always known for a long time that habitual cannabis use in adolescence can lead to detrimental psychiatric illness. But we're also kind of coming now to find, too, that the recreational user is also at higher risk for psychiatric disorders, in addition to risk for truancy, poor grades, and brushes with the law. Okay. And I don't disagree with that at all based upon what I've seen. And I mean, I have a zero tolerance in my house with any kind of intoxicants. Once a child gets intoxicated, and you know this better than anybody. Their childhood advantages. That's it. It's over. They're in another world now, a world of destruction. No kid under the 18 and down. Intoxication doesn't help them. Am I correct? Yeah, I mean, really, you know, what the medical research shows is that for teens, alcohol use, cannabis use, any kind of substance use actively changes anatomically of the brain. Yeah, I'm lucky because my urchins bought into the zero. They didn't have much choice, but they didn't.

As far as I know, they're clean. Final thing. There's a lot of hatred in this country now, political hatred. two sides, filters down to the urchins. Have you seen any of that? Any advice for people on that? Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, again, these are really kind of unprecedented waters that we have been traveling in terms of looking at the effect

of political instability on kids. And, you know, what we do know is that these kinds of issues most definitely affect not only adults, but also children and adolescents, the difference that children and adolescents have developing brains, while adults, we hope, are a little more in tune with the more rational parts of their brains. So when we expose people with developing brains to a lot of this vitriol, you know, what we do see is a lot of stress and can truly, you know, lead to

anxiety disorders and depressive illnesses. So I think, you know, in terms of recommendations again to parents, what we always recommend is modeling really good behaviors and also taking the emotion out of these debates, which can be really... Don't get angry in front of your kids and start swearing at the television set or anything like that. I agree. Hey, Dr. Very nice of you to help us out. We appreciate your expertise. And we'll talk again, I hope. Thank you. Here's a gem from the No Spin News Vault. Joining us now is the aforementioned Sarah Huckabee Sanders from Little Rock, Arkansas.

Her book is Speaking for Myself, big bestseller. I read the book, and it's very interesting. Full disclosure, before we get to Sarah, I did recommend her to my publisher McMillan, which eventually did publish the book under the St. Martin's imprint. So I was involved with getting that book, or at least getting some money to the Sanders family in Arkansas. Not that I want to gloat, but I want everybody to know that I did have a little bit of something to do with this. So, Sarah, when you were working at the White House and you heard these personal attacks on yourself, you're a human being, all right, a mom, a wife, how angry did you get? I mean, certainly, I don't think there's anybody that likes to hear those types of things said about them.

For me, personally, we went into the White House fully prepared to defend our positions, defend the president's agenda, but I think most of us were very surprised by how aggressive the attacks were. And not from nobodies. These were from mainstream, in some cases, household names, media figures on main, main anchors. at stations attacking us, not for an agenda, not for our policy, but attacking us personally. And that was something that was very surprising to me. You know, definitely didn't like it. But in many ways, it emboldened us to fight back, stay strong, and keep going, and call out their hypocrisy even more. Now, on page 110 of your book, you do address the wolf situation,

which was unique because you weren't watching it on TV. You were sitting a few feet away from her in a Washington ballroom at the correspondence dinner. And you, I took away from the passage that you read about this, that you were emotionally upset that evening. And you discussed it with your husband who was sitting in the room as well. Did you talk to Ms. Wolfe at all because you were very close to her about what she did? not after the fact we greeted each other briefly just before we went on to the stage but after it was over I was sort of swarmed in their defense by several members of the media who apologized for her but also by my friends and fellow co-workers at the White House to kind of you know

check on and say like don't worry about this let's fight back and you know I'm glad you stayed there and set strong and held your head high as you should have in that moment. So she and I never spoke after that moment and I don't think we ever will. I have no reason to talk to her at this point. I think we've had enough exchange for one lifetime. All right. And as I said, her career is nowhere and it never be anywhere. So she actually hurt herself by doing that. But if I were there, I would have taken the little bread roll and kind of right. But I'm immature. and I don't advise anybody to do that. Now, your book is fairly positive to Donald Trump.

No cheap shots, no regrets. You still believe in the man. Were you surprised when John Bolton, for example, turned on the president, wrote a book that was very, very negative. Were you surprised? Not really, because that's who John was in the White House. He was always running his own operation,

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

So you do see it as a betrayal, as a Judas move? Absolutely. And I'm glad that they're looking into whether or not some of the information he used in his book was classified. I went through a lengthy process in order to get my book cleared by the White House and make sure it didn't contain any classified information. My understanding, his book was never cleared for publication. And so I definitely think it's a good thing they're looking at that. His role, and I think he has hurt that role for any person moving forward by politicizing it and by putting that information out there. If he had felt so strongly that the president was a danger, why did he stay for so long? Why didn't he speak out sooner? I think we know why he wanted to make money. He wanted to sell a book. And that's exactly what he's done. And I think it's disgraceful to do what he has done throughout this process. Did you read the Woodward book? I did not. And you know what? I didn't have to because he spent, you know, obviously everybody wants to talk about the number of hours he spent

talking to Woodward. I spent almost every day with the president for two and a half years, so I didn't need to read the Woodward book. But I just said, yeah, I asked you that question because I have a better question coming up, but I wanted to establish I haven't read it. So in the book, you got former Secretary of State Tillerson, former Secretary of Defense Mattis, and former Defense National Defense Chief Coates, all talked to Woodward. They weren't quoted, but they obviously talk to him because their narratives are the first half of the book. All of them basically criticize the president as essentially being immature and not able to decision make at the level of president should be.

If you wanted to just do a whole estimation of the three of them, that's what they told Woodward, and Woodward spends about 120 pages on that. are you surprised that all three of those men took that posture a little bit more so not by all three certainly i think a couple of them is that is to be expected but i again i think it is problematic to have people that are that intimately involved if you feel that way then why did you participate and stay in that administration for so long why didn't you speak out and why do so in such a cowardly way. If you have a real problem, talk about it publicly or talk about it directly to the president in the moment. Don't wait until later just before an election to go out

and put your voice into a book, but not really put your name on it. I have a problem with people who leak anonymously. I put my name on the record when I'm putting a statement out, especially if it's as charged as some of the statements that these individuals are making. Of the three, Tillerson, Mathis, and Coates, did you have any problem with those three? Did you respect them at the time? I had a good relationship with Secretary Mattis. My back and forth with him was in a different capacity, obviously, than between him and the president.

Secretary Tillerson, I did not think was a good fit for the president from a very, early point that was just never going to be a relationship that was to the benefit of the administration. And so Director Coates, I didn't spend as much time with him in and out because most of what he does is not a public facing role. And so my interactions with him were a little bit more limited, but personally got along with him fine. But again, I don't love the way the aftermath has worked out and the role that they've chosen to play. that I've known the president for a long time and wrote a book on him in the United States of Trump, a history book. I know that he asked you advice far beyond what a spokesperson usually is asked.

So he wanted to know your opinion. Am I correct? Yes. And I think a lot of that was because I was very candid in my conversations with the president. If I did disagree with something, I told him. If I agreed with something, I told him if I thought we could say things in a different way, I would say that as well. But I did that in a closed door setting. And once the president made a decision, my job was to communicate the president's decision. I didn't come with my own agenda. And I think he knew that. And that was one of the reasons that he brought me into the room and trusted me to weigh in on a number of topics. So you inherited your candor from your father,

Governor Mike Huckney. How did you handle the president's moods? He's a moody guy. Everybody knows that. Sometimes he's, you know, a bullion and sometimes he's dour. How did you handle that? You know, I had a good relationship with the president, and we had certainly some back and forth,

but I actually really enjoyed being around him. I think he has just a larger-than-life personality. And on the days where, you know, I knew he wasn't in the mood to fight, then maybe that wasn't when I brought him a laundry list of things that I needed to go over and get answers on. And so I think having that kind of good back and forth allowed me to know when I should push and when I shouldn't and when to ask for certain things and when to wait. All right. Now, I know your job pretty well. I know Bill Shine, who's a communications guy in there, and I know the hardest part of your job, and you do state this in your book, was cleaning up after Donald Trump said stuff that the press went crazy about.

That was the hardest job. I want to give the audience an example of how the president does speak from yesterday when he talked about a CNN reporter, getting roughed up by police. Go. They grabbed them. They grabbed them. They grabbed them. They were grabbing them left and right. Sometimes they grabbed, they grab one guy. I'm a reporter. I'm a reporter. Get out of here. They threw him aside like he was a little bag of popcorn. But no, but I mean, honestly, when you watch the crap that we've all had to take so long,

when you see that, it's actually, you don't want to do that, But when you see it, it's actually a beautiful site. It's a beautiful site. All right. So then the press goes wild. It's a beautiful site that a reporter got roughed up. And then you, not you now, I mean, that falls to Kaylee McAnney now, but you, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, had a deal with that with the hostile press. Was that the toughest part of your job when the president would go off like that?

No, honestly, it really wasn't. You know, like you said, you've known Donald Trump for a long time. He's not different now than he was when he ran and when I worked on his campaign. So I knew what I was signing up for. I know that if the president gets hit, he's going to hit back, usually 10 times harder. I know that sometimes he likes to tweet things that everybody doesn't love. And so that was going to be part of the challenge. I think the hardest thing for me was how personal some of the reporters got

and how I think just hypocritical they got. Here I was, the third woman, the very first mom to ever hold that job, the first White House press secretary ever to need secret service. So those moments were far more difficult than working for the president and responding to a few tweets or maybe some comments at a rally. I knew that part of the job was going to be there when I took it, but I also knew that the president was fighting to try to make our country better, and whether you like his style or not, it's hard to argue with the substance of what he was doing and what he

accomplished. And so I was always able to go back to that. What made it more difficult was how outrageous the press and the liberal mob got day after day and how they continued to get worse and were so willing to come after not just the president, but everybody around him and nothing was off limits. off the table for them to attack us on. Why do you think he's hated so much? You know, I think there are probably a lot of reasons.

I think one of them is that he doesn't need them. He goes around them. And these are people that are very self-important. They're very proud of the way they turned out. And the president has gone around them and gone directly to the American people. He calls them out on the daily basis and it drives them crazy. They said he would never win. and they thought that there was no way he could beat an institution like theirs after the 2016 campaign.

And not only did he do it then, but he's been doing it pretty much everyday since, and they just keep getting matter and matter as a result. I think Amy Comey Barrett is going to be the nominee for the Supreme Court. How bloody do you think this is going to be? You went through the Kavanaugh hearings. You saw how awful that was. Ms. Barrett, is she in line for that kind of treatment? I think she is.

I think she's demonstrated inability to fight back, certainly, in her 2017 hearings up against Senator Feinstein and others who attacked her for her religious beliefs. I think that the Democrats are disgraceful in the way that they handled the Kavanaugh hearings. I fully anticipate that we will see part two of that movie in. the hearing for whoever the president chooses. And I wish I could say that they had learned their lesson, but I don't think that's the case. Let's not forget the outrageous accusations that they put up against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, somebody who had been through multiple background checks, an upstanding citizen in front of his wife, his daughters, they put them through hell,

and they didn't care. That to me is one of the things that is so mind-blowing. They have no problem absolutely destroying people's lives without regard to them or their family. I think we can expect them to try to do that again. And I think it will backfire in the same way it did with Kavanaugh, re-energize the Republican base, and help the president in November. All right. The book is Speaking for Myself, Faith Freedom and the fight of our lives inside the Trump White House, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. And thanks for coming on, Sarah, anytime you got something on your mind. We'd love to have you. The book is already a big bestseller. I recommend it to the Bill O'Reilly audience, and I want you to have a nice fall down there in Arkansas.

Best to your dad. And we'll talk soon, I hope. You bet. Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it. 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.