Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - November 22, 2025

Episode Date: November 22, 2025

Listen to this week's No Spin News interviews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. In certain communities like Catholic Church in America, the words illegal immigrants are never used. All right, progressive areas never use the word illegal. Don't use the word undocumented mostly either, okay, because their thinking is no human being is illegal. you've heard that. So Catholic Church never, ever issues a pronouncement about illegal aliens. They called them migrants. So there was a meeting last week in Baltimore. All the American Catholic bishops got together and they elected a new president, Archbishop Paul Coakley from Oklahoma City. Don't know him. And they issued a statement, and here is the statement.

We are disturbed when we see among our people, the climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement. We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants. We are concerned about the condition in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care. We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status. We are troubled by threats against the sanctity of houses of worship and the special nature of hospitals and schools. We agree. We meet parents who fear being detained when taking their children in school and when we try to consult family members who have already been separated from their loved ones. Unquote.

Okay. Now, as a Catholic myself, I think that's fine. That statement is all right. Catholic doctrine, all right. teaches that the Catholic Church always affirms the rule of law. So there isn't an exception to that. Joining us now, no, no, let me do one more thing before we get to the guest. We have a good guest here.

I'm going to learn a lot from this. So the problem here is ICE, the enforcement of immigration law. I have gone on record as saying, I support. not mass deportations, but certainly registration of every undocumented migrant and then the adjudication of their cases. All criminal gone, deported right away. And if a judge signs an order of deportation, right away. I'd like a lighter touch when ICE goes in because there are people who are not criminals, but who do associate with criminals. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those people, but I do for the children who don't know. They don't have any choice.

So here's what I said. The White House Borders are is Tom Holman, and he disagrees with the Catholic Church's position very much. Roll a take. We saw during the Biden administration when there wasn't no immigration enforcement, over 4,000 aliens died in McKinney, journey, historic record, a quarter million Americans died from fentanyl, historic record, secure borders saves lives. I wish the Catholic Church would understand that. We have the right to secure our borders that have the right to secure their facility.

You know, you can't enter their facility without getting arrested. As a matter of fact, the penalties for entering their facilities are much worse than ours. So, you know, we're going to force a law. Okay, and now let's get to the guest. I was going to run a sound bite, but I just told you, I did tell or suggest to, because I was respectful to Tom, Mr. Holman, who I loved. He's a stand-up guy. Lighter touch might be better on this. All right. So joining us now from El Paso, Texas, is Dylan Corbett. He's the Executive Director of Hope Border Institute. Okay. First thing. When 10 to 15 million migrants enter the USA under the Biden administration, did you you or your organization object to that?

Hey, Bill. It's good to have you. It's good to be with you. Great to be on your program. Thanks for the invitation. It's a good question. I think there was the perception that not everything was as orderly as it could have been under the Biden administration.

And I think we were certainly vocal about some real criticisms that we had. The way that they enforced immigration law at the vote, border the way that they really didn't coordinate the arrivals. They didn't do enough to coordinate it in a secure, in an orderly, in a safe way here at the border, the way that they didn't coordinate the arrival of people into many of the interior cities like we saw in New York. That generated perceptions of chaos. That generated the perception that the system wasn't working. And I think that we were fairly critical. There were also a number of people because they did take some real steps in the direction of increased enforcement at the border. And here in El Paso, for example,

during the Biden administration, we saw the numbers of people skyrocketing, the numbers of people who were dying at the border skyrocketing because there was no real way. And Holman made that point. But look, we research your organization. We don't find anything that you objected to the open border policies of the Biden administration. No statement, no interview by you, nothing. So you might have been this. disturbed by the chaotic aspect of it, but you certainly didn't come out and say, look, we need to stop this. So Trump gets elected. He stops it almost immediately. So what you saw and your agency had to deal with disappeared in about 45 days. Did you object to

Trump stopping it? Well, I think that we all agree. I think Americans, you know, whether they're on the right or on the left, whether the Republicans or Democrats, that we need to have well-managed border. Okay, but what Trump did, though, let's get specific, not theoretical. Theory gets us nowhere in this interview. Trump stopped it. Do you object to the way he did it? Yeah, I certainly have some issues with the way he did it because there's a cost.

Give me one objection. What did he do that you don't like? You know, there's a cost to doing what the president did. The president basically, you know, he shredded our system of asylum, and he shredded our system of receiving refugees, people who are fleeing, you know, they're fleeing wars, they're fleeing serious violence, they're fleeing serious causes of poverty, which are driving them to flee and, you know, to migrate to our border and search of protection. Okay, so you see you, you think that he shredded it.

Now, the official policy of Homeland Security is you can apply for asylum in the United States. You have to go to a port of entry to do so. You can't just be caught in the desert in Texas. or Arizona, say to the ICE agent or the Border Patrol agent, I want asylum, which is what Biden allowed. That was the big thing. They disregarded the Biden administration. The law Congress passed in 1952 saying all asylum must go through the American and counseling or embassy in the home country or in the American ports of entry. Now, Trump is enforcing that. You can still apply for asylum here. So you have an objection to that?

Well, I'd question that a little bit, Bill, because I think that the system of asylum really isn't being respected, neither at ports of entry nor between ports of entry. I'd quibble a little bit with how you characterize asylum law, because people do have the right under our federal law to apply for asylum, even if they were to cross in between ports of entry. But they could still do that. They don't have the right to apply for it on the ground. They have to go to a port of entry or an American facility and their home country. That's the law. That's what it says. There we'd have to disagree because right now you're not able to go to a consulate in Mexico or in Central America to apply to asylum. Simply

doesn't exist. If you came to a part of entry, I can tell you right now from my experience, you know, I'm only just a couple of miles from the port of entry here in El Paso. If you were to apply for asylum there, you're going to get turned back. You're going to get sent back to Mexico. So the system right now is not functional. We don't have an asylum system in the United States right now. Let me look into that. Because I, you know, from what I understand, and it is still a functioning system. But if you're right, you're right, and I'll report it. Okay, let's move ahead.

So you've got now between 10 and 15 new migrants that weren't here in the first Trump administration that are now here. What is the responsibility of the United States government to support those people? Yeah, you raise a good question. And I think you said earlier in the segment that the United States government

really does have a responsibility to know who's coming into our country. And we do. Important. We've got to manage the border so that it's done in a safe way. We've got to protect the national security of our country. And we've got to protect local communities. If people are threats to our community, as you said earlier, you know, you support immigration enforcement of those who are threats. We do have to go after legitimate threats. We shouldn't be allowing anyone to gain the system, to exploit the system. We shouldn't be allowing traffickers to take advantage of the broken system. So immigration enforcement really does need to prioritize safety. We can agree on that. Now, what do we do with the other folks who are in the

country, some of whom have been in the country for a long time, many who've been here for more than 10 years, many who've been here for more than 20 years, many people who have roots in the country, their children are going to our schools, they might have a small business. What do we do about those folks? That's the question on the table right now. Whether you agree with what's happening on the border or not? The question right now is, what do we do with what we're seeing in the country around enforcement? You mentioned the Bishop's statement. I think the big takeaway from the bishops is that they're really pushing back against mass deportation as a strategy for dealing with this population. But it's really not mass, because, I mean, if you look at how many

migrants are being detained, it's a 5% would be a hard number, all right, of all the people who are allowed in here under Biden. But I understand that. I would go a different way. Well, you don't object to criminal aliens being deported immediately, do you? Well, I think we do need to remove anyone who's a threat to the safety of our own.

All right, so criminal aliens gone. And that includes DUIs, domestic services. The problem is, according to Director Holman, who's an honest man? I mean, he's a hard. He's a hard guy. But when they raid, looking for migrants that have judges' orders signed for deportation and criminals, when they raid, very often there are others with them, girlfriends, brothers, sisters, children who are here without credentials, and they have to bring them all in.

That's what the government says. Is that wrong? Well, as you said, I do think we've got to target people who are threats to our local community. But that's not what we're seeing right now. The data are pretty clear, Bill. If we look at everybody, for example, who's been targeted and arrested and detained this year under the Trump administration, two-thirds of people don't have a criminal conviction. So that's the vast majority. We're talking about the overwhelming percentage of people who have been targeted.

Okay. But one-third with criminal. interactions, that's a hell of a lot of people in danger. But I'm with you. We don't have a disagreement there. If there's another way to adjudicate peaceful undocumented migrants, then we should explore that. Congress's responsibility, of course, to do that and they don't do it. Okay. Yeah, we've got a broken system, and both parties are at fault, and it's been broken for a long time. And that's the reason that we're in this predicament right now, because we haven't, We've kicked the can both, both the president, the White House. A hundred percent.

You can't be going in 1952 law, and it's 2025, and you people sit around, do nothing. Now, a Catholic church, if you look at the theology, are you Catholic? I am. Just like that. Okay. Okay. So that we have to be compassionate. 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 and precious metals delivered thousands of five-star reviews and an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau, you can trust American Hartford Gold as I do. Please call 866-326-55-7576 or text bill to 99-89-89-again. And that's 866-326-5576-5576 or text bill to 998899 to everybody who's poor and in a bad circumstance.

And that includes undocumented migrants. And I am. I can prove it. But the Catholic Church A refuses to use the words undocumented, won't use it. And number two, portrays this as an issue where the government is the bad guy. The U.S. government is the bad guy. And I'll submit to you that the bishops are misguided because the government is trying to protect Americans from this massive wave that nobody has any control over.

Do you see my point? I see what you're saying. I think I would say that the bishops, and I work. for the bishops for a number of years. I worked for the Vatican for a number of years. I think what's really happening is that these religious leaders are responding to what their local communities are seeing across the country. They're responding to two things. They're responding to that, the reality of these actions of ICE and immigrant enforcement and the raids that are really ugly. They're brutal. I mean, we're talking about moms being separated from

families. We're talking about, you know, there's been situations where school teachers have been ripped out of schools, you know, where parents have been ripped out of cars, where their kids are left behind. Nobody wants to see that. That's not the way to... But that's not the rule. That is the exception. I think that they're responding to that, though. They're seeing, I mean, you've seen the images coming out of Chicago of Los Angeles, you know, where we're deploying the Department of Homeland Security, but also the FBI and in some cases, the National Guard and the military, nobody wants to see this. It's not good. And in fact, it's turning off a lot of voters. A lot of people who supported Trump and said, yeah, we want to secure border. Yeah,

we've got to fix the immigration system. A lot of people are stepping back. He's losing in the Latino vote. So I think the bishops are responding to what they're seeing locally, but they're also responding to the Pope. Pope Leo, you know, he's been outspoken about this, especially right in the last couple months. But that's his job, see, but I'd like to interview Pope Leo. We're working on it, but I don't think he's going to do it. But I would say, you're holding it. My first question, my first question after asking him for forgiveness would be, listen, every government, legitimate government, has an obligation to protect its people. And when you let 10 to 15 million unsupervised foreign nationals into a country,

that's not protecting your people, your holiness, is it? I'd love to see on how he answers that one. And they all fall back on the teacher in that school or the mom and the, I got it. But there is a tremendous problem here fostered by our own government under Biden. I'll give you the last word. Yeah, I think the Holy Father would respond this way. I think you'd say you're right. There's a place for borders.

There's a place for governments managing immigration so that it's done in a way It's efficient, it meets our national security needs, and maybe even meets our economic needs. I think the Holy Father would probably agree with that. But it also say that when we lead with compassion, that when we honor the stranger, when we welcome the stranger, we'll be better off for it because it's the Christian thing to do, it's the right thing to do. But it's also the American thing to do. He's from the America. He knows this is a country that's benefited from the contributions of migrants, that they're key to our economic resilience, our social resilience.

They make us great as a country. and I think he'd remind us of that, that there's got to be a better way. There's got to be a better way. You're right. But it isn't letting everybody in. And that is the impression that the Catholic Church is giving not only the USA, but in Europe as well. There's a corporate, very good debate. We really appreciate you, and thank you for coming on today.

You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. All right, podcasts. Two million podcasts in America. And we don't do a podcast, so if you were counting us, then you have to go down one. All right, many of them are irresponsible. They're just people spouting, saying whatever they want to say. They don't think there's any accountability. Well, there is now because a lawsuit has been filed in New York State by a man named Robert O'Neill.

Now, if you read my book, Killing the Killers, you know who are. Robert O'Neill is. He's a former Navy SEAL who is credited with killing Osama bin Laden in the raid on bin Laden's compound, May 2nd, 2011, Pakistan. We opened killing killers. It is harrowing what happened in that raid. Robert O'Neill pulled a trigger and ended bin Laden's life. We checked it every way we could possibly check it.

It's in the book. We believe it happened. Well, there's a podcast, two guys, that say O'Neil's a fraud. He didn't kill him, Ben Laden. Now, we've got to look at O'Neill's resume. Two silver stars, four bronze medals, joint service accommodation medal, three presidential unit citations,

two Navy and Marine Corps accommodation medals. I mean, the guy was in the Navy 16 years. He's one of the most decorated officers, Chief Petty Officer. And now these two are saying, no, he's a fraud. So joining us now from New York City is Senior Chief Petty Officer, Robert O'Neill, retired. Now, did I sum that up accurately? Did I miss anything or misstate anything? Oh, thank you for that, Mr. O'Reilly.

It's good to be back with you. only little thing is all four bronze stars have valor. One of the Navy Marine Corps accommodations has valor. The Joint Service Commendations has valor. And Silver Stars do not come with valor. It's just assumed gallantry against the enemy. No, that was good. And it's the case, too. It's just like you said, with millions of podcasts, people can say whatever they want. And then there's really no accountability. And these guys have been coming after me for a solid two years now. And I've listened to it a bunch of times. I don't like hearing it. And I've heard stuff because this is a very high-profile mission. I was actually involved

with the most high-profile missions to include rescuing the lone survivor, Marcus Latrell. I was the lead jumper to rescue Richard Phillips from Somali pirates, and I was the guy that ended up shooting Osama bin Laden. And I've heard stuff, and I do from other veterans towards other veterans. I'm tired of the vet on vet hate. But when my college-age daughter started calling me having trouble sleeping at night and going to bed crying

because their father's a fraud, everything he did was a lie. It starts to get to me. And these are the same girls that one of my daughters was three, when I left to go after Osama bin Laden, and I wasn't allowed to tell her or my family where I was going. I was pretty sure I wasn't coming back. I was saying goodbye to her for the last time. And she ran upstairs, got a hello kitty carry on, put a Mr. Elephant and a pillow in it,

and said, take me on vacation when you get back. That's enough to live with right there. We did come back and we lived. And then, you know, 14 or however many years later, to hear it's all fake, it's all made up and I'm a fraud. There is a time to stand up to bullies in everyone's life. And this is just my time, again, to go find a bully and win. All right.

What are you suing for? well i'm suing them for defamation because they've been defamation they're defaming your character calling you a liar and you're suing them why do you think these guys are doing it there are two of them right brent Tucker and tyler hoover those are the two guys you're suing those are the two main guys brent's tucker in particular former uh operator to tier one unit for the army which is a stellar unit. I mean, it's almost surprising, too, that the unit is letting him be the face of the unit, but that's what they're doing. And I'm going after them because they're in talks with people behind the scenes that are just telling them different stuff. They're basing it on an after

action's report that we gave after the bin Laden raid. And there was a guy who was actually just on Sean Ryan's show last week. He was on the raid too. He based his book No Easy Day on the after action report that isn't quite true. But he went on Sean Ryan show and admitted that he shot bin Laden after he's dead. So the two things that were left out that I purposely left out of the after action. One, Amal bin Laden was shot before I got there. She got shot somehow. And then other guys shot bin Laden after I had killed him. I left them out of that on purpose because a lot of stuff doesn't need to go in there. But that'll all be adjudicated in the court of law. What I'm trying to get at here is why do these guys want to do this to you? There's enough evidence that says

what you did happen. You got guys in your unit. You got the Commander, because we checked all that out before we put it in killing the killers, okay? So why would these guys want to go up against that? Is there a reason? Well, I mean, there's got to be a reason. It's got to be peppered with jealousy. And some of it could be post-traumatic stress. So you don't know these guys? You never talked to them? Never met them. I never met him. I was at my mom's house in Butte, Montana, and it came across one of my feeds where this guy, Brent Tucker, was saying, I know for a fact that Rob O'Neill did not kill bin Laden. And I even responded to him, which is a mistake, because it gave him credit,

or it gave him some eyes on. And I just said, I think my first response was, dude, I don't even know you. Right. And just to go ahead and without question, I know exactly what happened. This is New York State. It's going to take you years to get this into the courtroom and the lawyer fees and all out. You got a guy working pro dono on your behalf? Are you paying them, the lawyer? Yeah, I've hired a firm to help me out. David Schwartz is helping me out. and we've gone through a lot of, we've gotten, I've gotten, you know, I even got like, like, you probably talked to Admiral Bill McCraven, who was overall in charge, we talked to Barack Obama. I've got a letter that he wrote from him, and I had to tell him as well,

I don't want to do this. I would appreciate a letter, and he obviously said, well, of course I'll help you. And I said, what do I owe you? And he said, you already did it. And that's, I mean, that's something about the nobility bill. No, you're going to win. It's just going to take forever. And then it'll be, this is New York State. Okay. They designed, they designed, they designed. They the whole civil legal system to enrich the attorneys, to keep it going for years and years and years. That's what they do. So say at the end, you win. These guys don't have money to pay you off big time. The two podcasters, they don't have anything. Well, I mean, I don't, I don't think I'm going to, I have the truth on my side, so I'm not worried. I don't think anybody wins.

It's not like I want to do this. No, all right, but I'm going in the legal system. So there's going to be a jury trial unless these two guys settle. I don't know. Maybe you would settle with them. I don't know. But there's going to be a jury. And they're going to say, no, this is all bull. And, you know, these guys attacked them and they were malicious in doing it. And it's a defamatory system. So they've got to pay Robert O'Neill this much money, which is not going to be able to pay. So you're, and correct me if I'm wrong, this just looks like you want a righteous action against what you believe is very wrong. That's what it looks like to me.

Yeah, that's very correct, Mr. O'Reilly. And it will also be a stand for the vet on vet. Hey, I am the first veteran they've attacked, but they've then gone on to attack everybody else. Part that bothers me, too, is they're really taking joy and watching them destroy other people. No, I don't think you're going to be taking a lot of joy, Robert, when they have to show up in New York

and hire defense attorneys and everything else. I know. They're not going to be so joyful about that. I mean, you're putting a word to them. I know. But you know what really made me decide that, too, is he got on his new podcast that he renamed as a positive thing. He did an hour and a half trashing me.

And he said, if I was lying about Rob O'Neill, he'd sue me. So here we are. Okay. All right, we're going to follow the case. We, of course, admire your service. We, the story about your daughter is very troubling to me. Because I know that's true, and I know that people who are attacked in the public arena, their family gets crushed.

And that alone is worth going after these people. So you keep his posting about what happens, Mr. O'Neill. Thank you very much for everything you've done for this country. And we'll talk again soon, okay? I'm an honor. And thanks for having Mr. O'Reilly. All right. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition.

All right, Epstein Mania, only one person in the House and the Senate voted to not release the Justice Department data on Jeffrey Epstein, one. And he is Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana. Apparently he doesn't have cable TV. That's what he said on the radio. Or he's out in Bayutej somewhere and he couldn't get back. I don't know. Now, if I were a congressman or senator, I would have voted to release the data because it's the American people clearly want. All right?

Most of the American public, according to the policy, just a big conspiracy, government's covering up stuff, they believe whatever they want to believe. And that's what folks do, we live in an age of conspiracy theory. And it's driven by social media, people make a lot of money doing it, and you know, we don't do that here. All right. So now the data comes out after President Trump signs this bill, which he will. Attorney General, Pambani is 30 days, put it out, and she will. I'm not expecting anything major. I could be wrong. If there is, we will cover it fairly and clearly. What will we do? Okay. But I am expecting a lot of horror and a lot of things that are very, wrong. Now last night on News Nation, which is the best, if you want news coverage, that's the best

network. I'll be on tonight at E. PM Cuomo. It's not because I'm on there, I'm on there a couple of times a week. But they try to be fair. All right. So you got Chris Cuomo last night interviewing a lawyer for one of the victims, alleged victims. Very legitimate. Of course you're going to do that. The woman's name is Annie Farmer. Okay? And she's been around for a while. She made all kinds of accusations about Epstein and powerful people, but she didn't name the powerful people and all of this stuff. Okay. So if you were just watching this interview, you would say, that poor woman, you know, what she went through and we need to get all the information to punish the people who harm that woman. If you're a decent person, that's what you're thinking,

listening to this interview with Chris Cuomo. But to his credit, Cuomo then puts on the next guest, Alan Dershowitz, who was accused falsely, it looks like, of doing illegal things with Epstein, okay, and who represented Epstein. Here's what Dershowitz said, go. But I worry that if names are released of people who are accused without there being information released, that might cast doubt on the credibility of the accusers like this former person.

Your lawyer who just presented, her case never mentioned the fact that she said, I have a hard time with Jews, all the Jewish people I met are pedophiles. Do you believe a person like that? It would take you two minutes to destroy her in cross-examination. She should not be believed. And that is the point. Unfettered information released to the public,

the public is no blank and clue. Who's credible and who isn't? Who's lying and who isn't? And then they form judgments. And then people get hurt. That's what I've been saying in the very beginning. So this is a tough, tough story. Now I'm going to back it up.

Reuters poll, very unfriendly to Donald Trump historically. Royder's asked everybody, okay, do you approve of Trump's handling of the Jeffey-Ebstein files? Yes, 20%. No 59. This is when President Trump was not going to put it out. Unsure 21. Do you think the government is hiding Epstein's alleged? client list. Yes, 70%, no eight, unsure, 22. I mean, the public is already formed

its opinion about this based on nothing, based on nothing. Okay? So I'm sitting here, and I'm going, okay, we're in which hunt land. Joining us now from Red. Joining us now from Redding, California, nice town in the northern part of the state. Joseph Tully, who is a criminal defense attorney who has appeared with me before. It's an honest man in my assessment, and that's what we're looking for. All right, counselor, number one, and the way I'm framing this is okay. I'm a senator or a congressperson. I'm going to want to vote yes on the release, but I am very, very uneasy about what may happen. Do you see it the same way?

I, sure. I do have concerns because, as Mark Twain said, something to the effect of, you know, a lie will go around the world, you know, much quicker than the truth can put his pants on in the morning. And we have a system of justice of innocent until proven guilty, and that must always be adhered to. But I do share your concern that what the release of these files, unchecked, unfettered information can go to the public, they will draw the worst conclusions and kind of run with it and will have sort of guilt by association or guilt within the press. So that's a fact. That's a fact. That's going to happen. And then the people who are in business to destroy Trump will cherry pick what they want. And the people who are in business to destroy

the Democrats or Bill Clinton or wherever may be will cherry pick what they want. We've already seen that. Now, when the House Oversight Committee released some of the documents, we had a bunch of emails by Jeffrey Epstein himself. Who cares? That's hearsay. The man is in prison, all right? The man has been convicted, and what he says after the fact, it doesn't matter. Yet the press is reporting this as gospel truth. I'm sitting there stunned. Cares with this. thug this low-life says. It doesn't matter. Its hearsay could be introduced in any court proceeding, correct?

Correct, yes. I mean, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. But in looking through that from a legal perspective, I didn't see anything that if, from Donald Trump's perspective, that was any kind of, you know, an actual threat against him or actual accusation. Factually, you're correct. but that's not what the press did. Jeffrey Epstein says, I can destroy him.

That's what the press did. You saw it? Sure. That's hysteria. Yes. While ignoring the fact that you had two Americans casually talking about blackmailing or possibly blackmailing a presidential candidate, they focused on his statements, which really didn't amount to any sort of accusation against,

Donald Trump? No, it was a general statement. So why do you believe that what our discussion is based on now has been suppressed? There is not a skepticism being shown by the national media about this information at all. It's gleeful. Let me run and exploit this. Why do you think that's happening? So I do think that the water has built up behind the dam in terms of, you know, public disclosure and transparency. I think the American system is based on a transparency of government more so than any other country in the history of the world. With the Epstein files, I think it's pretty clear that there's been a withholding of evidence. And the public got very, very fed up. And sort of the

pendulum swung to one side, release it, release it now, we're tired of it, we're frustrated, we've been waiting too long. And that, I think, is contributing to the public sentiment where they're very, very upset that the disclosure has not happened. And now it is finally being released. When you say, and now I'm in a court of law with you, well, there's evidence that there's a cover up. What is that evidence, in your opinion? I don't see evidence of a cover-up. I see evidence of possibly delayed disclosure. Delayed disclosure.

Yeah, there's no evidence that evidence has been destroyed, which would be a cover-up. Okay, or suppressed. You know, so if the evidence is suppressed, and it looks like there might be evidence in the assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler. Pennsylvania, the FBI might have suppressed evidence. And we're going to do that story tomorrow because we're a responsible news agency here. I have to check it. I can't take it out of the New York Post.

I check it myself because it's a serious concern. The FBI suppressed evidence about the shooter, then, you know, we've got to look at it. But in this case, what I'm seeing is I wrote a book called Killing. the witches. And the hysteria that all those hundreds of years ago in Massachusetts that led to the death of 20 human beings, exactly the same hysteria, is in play right now. Here in America. Last word. I would agree with you. I think that any time you give a group of people power that is unchecked, you will end up with injustice. It happened during the Salem witch trials. We had young girls who would show up to court and faint and would go into

convulsions while pointing the finger, which we know were false. There were witches that were casting magic spells over them. So in some degree, I see the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. We do need a balanced approach. We do need reasonable review of the evidence. But that's not going to happen in the U.S. media. There's no way that's ever going to happen. Counselor, thanks very much. We really appreciate your expertise. Thanks for coming on. 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.