Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - October 11, 2025

Episode Date: October 11, 2025

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

What did your ancestors really do all day? Beyond names, what were their lives like? With Ancestry's global historical records, you can discover incredible stories about how your ancestors lived and worked, and for a limited time, you can explore select occupation records for free. Imagine finding your great-grandfather's RCMP records or discovering your ancestors' name in the UK and Ireland Nursing Register. Don't miss out.

Free access ends August 24th. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply. With the RBC Avion Visa, you can book any airline, any flight, any time. So start ticking off your travel list. Grand Canyon? Grand. Great Barrier Reef? Great. Galapagos? Galapagos?

Switch and get up to 55,000 avion points that never expire. Your idea of never missing out happens here. Conditions apply. Visit rbc.com slash avion. Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. Joining us now from Florida is a constitutional attorney. Now, this guy has been around. Bruce Fine, his general counsel of the FCC under President Reagan,

participated in the drafting of articles impeachment against Nixon and Bill Clinton. Wow. Quite the resume, counselor. Blattery will get you everywhere. Well, it's okay. I'm telling the truth. We only get the best guess on this program. All right, so am I reading this wrong that the Trump administration probably will win this in the Supreme Court?

I think right now the jury is out, but let me add a couple of footnotes to your opening observations. The power to utilize the military to enforce the law is not a is not in the Constitution. It's in congressional statutes. Shea's rebellion actually occurred before the Constitution in 1786, but those are small things. At present, we do know that there's a statute. At least now, President Trump has refrained from invoking.

It's called the Insurrection Act of 1807. It was urged by some to be utilized with regard to many of the protests that surfaced after George Floyd killing, but President Trump, I think he was concerned that the military wasn't completely supportive of invoking the Insurrection Act that says, you know, in times when there's sufficient chaos and disruption that the enforcement of federal laws is severely compromised, he can utilize the military. It is what's called an exception to the comitatis posse comitatis act of 1877, which says, Ordinarily, you can't use the military to enforce civilian law unless Congress by statute creates an exception.

Okay. Let me stop you there. Let me push back. So the Shea's Rebellion came under the Articles of Confederation, which were then incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. In 1871, U.S. grant ordered federal troops to South Carolina without congressional approval to put down a Ku Klux Klan. It was like a war. And the federal troops went in, and it was violence, shooting, all kinds of stuff. Okay? Then the city of New Orleans and others were taken over by the federal government because they would not ensure public safety. You'll remember that. There were actually law enforcement agents from New York City that were appointed to run the New Orleans Police Department with federal oversight. So you're correcting your interpretation, but there is that clause that there are.

exceptions to the posse comitatis law when the public or federal facilities or people are deemed to be in danger, correct? Well, I mean, I think I'd never like to be disputatious, but again, I add a little bit of context here. Remember those invocations by President Grant were during Reconstruction, where there are military governments running all of the South. did not end until at least 1877. Yeah, but it didn't matter because the South Carolinian authorities had their own elected

officials, and they would not deal with the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Grant wrote the order. Yeah, right, but that was before the Posse Comitatis Act, and it was six years before. It was based upon reconstruction law. But I'm just saying, Bill, there's nothing. in the express language of the Constitution that addresses this issue. It does say in Article 1, Section 9, that Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and you could impose martial law, so to speak.

But that's Congress, not the executive branch. And here, at least at present, Mr. Trump is not Congress to do anything. Okay, so then you would say that the Trump lawyers are going to raise the Insurrection Act. That would be the way to go, correct? if they want to, if they want to follow the... Well, you're going to have to defend it. They're going to have to. I think that is correct.

And say that was contemplated during the George Floyd demonstrations, many of which erupted into violence, but Trump decided for his own reasons not to invoke the Insurrection Act. But I underscore the importance in my mind is always process over personalities. That's what the process is. And Congress can expand the instances in which it, president can use the military by statute, but has to amend the law and make it as possible it can be justified. And the law is pretty clear, Bill, that the dividing line between when we have ordinary law enforcement and these extraordinary occasions when the president can intercede is

basically when the court system has broken down. We know that courts are there because people do violate the law from time to time. They're in massive violations during probation. Okay, but let me stop you there. Sanctuary cities defied a law. Chicago and Portland of sanctuary cities. So that go ahead. It's more complicated, Bill, for this reason, and I don't want to sound like a lawyer. No, no, no, just shoot it. Go ahead. This is the U.S. Supreme Court. And it arose with regard to gun control. And the Supreme Court held you cannot coerce state authorities to enforce federal law, Right? Immigration law is federal law. It's exclusively entrusted to Congress and the executive in Article 1, Section 8. And the courts have held that you cannot compel a state to assist in immigration enforcement. A state may choose to cooperate. Fair enough, right? And the federal government can utilize as many ICE agents they want to enforce federal law. So it's a little bit misleading to say, you may disagree with the decision of a state to say, we don't want to help.

Okay, but, but, but, remember, help, help is different. What was the difference then? What would be the difference then? You can flood the zone with ICE agents, but why not National Guard? It's the same protective apparatus. Look, when the feds to go, you were around, you were around. Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. You were around when the federal government took over the city of New Orleans Police Department.

Okay. They did it citing public safety that the police department in New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, was not able to protect a citizenry. The same law that was used to send the guard into L.A. when there were the riots, that when the police chief of Los Angeles said, we can't handle this, and clearly said it, and our people are in danger, banged. The guard went in and the courts allowed them to go in, correct? Yes, and that's correct. And the reason was because the state authorities were saying we cannot. No, no, just the police chief. The governor would, the governor repudiated it and so did it legislate.

He wasn't contradicted. The states weren't, I mean, the governor wasn't contradicting that. Here we have a situation which is a little more complex where the governors are saying we can handle this issue. We don't need assistance, and at least at present, it doesn't appear as though the federal officials being sent in are confined to simply enforcing the immigration laws, which they're entitled to do. All right, let me challenge you again. If you have a chief of patrol sending out a message to cops, do not protect ICE agents as you have

in Chicago, that seems to me to be all you need. to send in National Guard to protect the ICE agents? Well, I agree with that, and the National Guard could go in and protect the ICE agents for sure. Just like he can send in the Guard to protect federal buildings, including ice buildings, if they're attacked. I have no doubt about that. I think some of the litigation bill is because some of the federal interveners are going beyond simply enforcing the immigration laws and protecting ICE agents, although they're doing that as well. well. But I do not, and if it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have no doubt that with regard to federal officials enforcing federal law, that the Supreme Court will say Trump under existing

statutes can dispose of the National Guard or the military to accomplish that function. To the extent there's a dispute, it's well whether they can go beyond the federal functions and enforce the law more generally. Okay, that seems to be, that seems to be logical. But, you know, the National Guard isn't making any arrests in D.C. where it's posted and wouldn't make any arrests in Portland or Chicago. They're there to contain the violence and the arrests are being made by federal agents. Primarily, you know that. The Guard had made any arrests. So that would take that issue away from the judges that are trying to stay in. 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. placed 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 866-3-2-6, 55-76, or text bill to 99-89-8899. Again, that's 866-326-5576 or text bill to 998899. At the Nissan All In Clear Out, there's nothing more chill than financing an award-winning Nissan for just 0%. Enjoy the soothing relaxation of zero stress, zero worries, zero indecision. Hurry in because once they're gone, there will be zero left. During the Nissan all-in clear-out, get zero percent financing plus up to $500 bonus on some of our best-selling models. You have zero reasons to wait.

Conditions apply. See your local Nissan dealer today. Well, oftentimes the law is very complicated, and lawyers draw lines that maybe are mysterious to lay people. But even if they're not making arrests, the statute says that you can be summoned to protect federal. buildings, federal officers in the discharge of federal responsibilities. But it doesn't say, as long as you don't make arrests, you can go ahead and please for other purposes, at least if the state officials don't want it. Now, my view is that the immigration is the chief issue.

Why are you going? And if you're asking for an electoral mandate, Trump did get a mandate with regard to immigration, but I don't think got a mandate for every other law. Right. Well, immigration, certainly in Chicago, I think that's the proper. property in Portland, Oregon. I'm going to predict here, counselor, that the Supreme Court will allow the guard to go in

and basically about what you said. But I don't know whether they're going to be that specific in spelling out exactly what the guard and can't and can't do. That would be unusual for the court to do that. Last word. No, I study the court read a lot of their opinions. No, sometimes they can be very precise. very precise. You can go this far, but no further. They don't have to do that, after all,

they're the final word, right? But it wouldn't be unique in the annals of Supreme Court. No, no, but this is a political court. This is a political court. And I don't know whether it's going to be six, three, or five, four, it might be five, four. But I think they're going to give Trump the authority to do this, because they understand that the locals and states are are undermining the federal government here. That's how I see it. And I want to make one thing clear, Bill, I do think it becomes constitutionally suspect for a state to say, we're not going to help or protect race agents,

but others we will protect. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has also said, you can't single out federal operations for discrimination. Once you have state authorities out there, You can't, insofar as they're discharging their duties, say, we'll protect everything except the feds. That doesn't work. The Supreme Court has said it's got to be even-handed if you have the authority at all. All right.

You think I should take the bar exam, counselor? That was a good discussion. I appreciate your expertise. And we'll have you back after they rule, because they're going to have to rule fast on this. So thank you very much, counsel. We appreciate it. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Okay, media madness.

First big change in the network news hierarchy has been implemented. It's a woman named Barry Weiss, B-A-R-I-Wice. Big on the Internet runs the free press, okay? Used to work from the New York Times, quit because she said it was far too liberal. She is pro-Israel anti-Wolk. She has been appointed by CBS News's new ownership, Paramount Skydance, as the editor-in-chief. CBS Rank and File are freaking out because it's 90% liberal over there, as everyone knows.

Now, Ms. Weiss comes in and is going to change the culture. That's why Skydance hired her. Joining us now from Herndon, Virginia, is Tim Graham. He's the executive editor of NewsBusters, which is a conservative watchdog group that follows the media very closely. So, as you know, Tim, I used to work for CBS News. I was there when Rather was the anchor in liberal culture then. Pretty intense liberal culture when I was there. Now it's off the chart.

What do you think is going to happen with new management at CBS News? Well, it has to change somehow. You know, she fired the first shot, so to speak, in this memo. she sent out when she took office. Just the title editor-in-chief makes all the liberals nervous. And especially when I think it was item six and seven, she said, we are going to try to provide equal scrutiny of the political parties. And we are going to try to ensure a diversity of viewpoints.

Both of those are extremely opposed to what we generally see on CBS, specifically on some programs like 60 Minutes. We're already seeing there's complaints saying, please don't touch the crown jewels of 60 Minutes and CBS News Sunday morning. Those are two of the most aggressively tilted shows where you have fierce scrutiny of Trump and the Republicans and you have fierce publicity for Biden, Harris, you know, and the like. Right, right. So, I mean, it's going to change.

We know the CBS morning, Sunday morning program, because it's, you know, they flat out refused to put me on to talk about my books. I'm a best-selling non-fiction author in the world. That's Jane Pauley, by the way. Jane looks so nice out there in her little demure outfits and all of that. Hardcore leftist. Hardcore leftist. 60 minutes, been taken over.

When Hewitt and Wallace were there running it, wasn't that left. It was a little bit, but not crazy. Now it's crazy. They want to get President Trump to do an interview. I talked to the president about this. on Friday. He's still up in the air about it. But he's got, Mr. Trump has the advantage now, because if they do anything untoward, they've got to answer for it, whereas they didn't have to answer to the old CBS News hierarchy. So that in itself is a big change, correct?

Yeah, it certainly is. And what I enjoyed the last time when President Trump sat down with Leslie doll. They recorded it themselves. And we got these great nuggets like Leslie Stahl trying to tell Donald Trump, you can't verify Hunter Biden's laptop. We can't do that. And then they did. But yeah, it's plainly anti-journalism to say we cannot or more likely we refuse to do work that embarrasses the Democrats. That's what that's at least what the memo says. that Barry Weiss is trying to change. Well, look, Scott Pelley hates Trump. Hates him.

And then just when he gives his speeches outside of CBS, I mean, he says it. Pellie, Pellie's not a phony. He just said, I hate him. So who's going to interview him on 60 Minutes? Can't have Leslie, can't have Pellie. Who are you going to have? I don't know who the rest of them are. I mean, they just kind of parade them in and out.

Now, calling all book lovers, The Toronto International Festival of Authors brings you a world of stories all in one place. Discover five days of readings, talks, workshops and more with over 100 authors from around the world, including Rachel Maddow, Ketourou Isaku, and Kieran Desai. The Toronto International Festival of Authors, October 29th to November 2nd.

Details and tickets at festivalofauthors.ca. When you support Movember, You're not just fundraising. You're showing up for the men you love. Your dad, your brother, your partner, your friends. It isn't just a men's issue. It's a human one. That's why Movember exists to change the face of men's health.

For mental health and suicide prevention to prostate and testicular cancer research and early detection. Movember is tackling the biggest health issues facing men today. Join the movement and donate now at Movember.com. say that CBS moderates a little bit, and I believe it will. I was on with Major Garrett for confronting evil and Major is a colleague of mine from Fox, and he's now a big CBS guy, and he

put me on right away, and we had a very good discussion. So that was a shocker to me, came out of nowhere, and so I said, wow, maybe this change in the air. I don't see change in the air for Disney, ABC, and Comcast NBC. Do you see any change over there in those two places? would say no. I mean, NBC is sort of shedding MSNBC. Did it on. Right. It's over. So MSNBC might actually get worse. But, yeah, I don't think there's anybody inside those buildings that are going to say, why don't we try applying equal scrutiny to both parties? I mean, look, this is exactly what we've tried to suggest would be the way to do it.

The old-fashioned way to do it is you would, first of all, you grant access to both parties, and then you would try to ask each of them fair and somewhat challenging questions. And that's just not what we've got instead. Yeah, Kelly's doing interviews with Biden where they edit him out. Disney's taking it on the chin, though. I mean, their theme park attendants is down. They're getting cancellations for Hulu and their cable outs, because traditional Americans know to fix us in, and they know they can take it out on Disney. Comcast's a little bit different. They let MS. It's MS now. They're on their own. And that's going to fail because they just don't have any resources. So I give them a year. And they're not going to pay anybody anything.

And that's another thing. Salaries are going to drop all over the place. Let's get the cable because we are talking about MS now. So the cable operations, they're not under the same scrutiny as the network news because the FCC has no power over cable at all, not, because the FCC does have power over the three networks. Does that make a difference? Well, you'd think it does now because one of the complaints about whether it was Jimmy Kimmel, whether it was the lawsuits against CBS, for example, they all thought, well, if you want to, if you have any business where you want to acquire a media property in the FCC or the FTC, or the FTC, He has to approve it then.

Donald Trump's going to tell you you'd need to do X, Y, and Z. So they've been concerned about that. So, yes, the cable operations don't have that fear. But the problem is, as you suggested, Nielsen now tries to measure these things, where they said half of Americans watching television are watching it on streaming. And the other half, it's cable and broadcast combined. And we certainly know, I know from my own children, they're not watching broadcast TV. They're not listening to Broadcast Radio.

Absolutely over. My urchins haven't watched a network show in years. Now they're young adults and they still don't watch it. So the clock is ticking on all of them. Hey, Tim, thanks very much. If you get any inside stuff, let us know. We appreciate your helping us out. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition.

Okay, so the National Guard is on the way to Chicago. story. First effects. Governor Pritzker is the villain here, and I can back that up. So he's been in office for six years. During that time, 4,000, mostly African Americans, 80 percent, have been murdered, and Pritzker has done nothing. What could he do? He could call out the National Guard. Now, President Trump has federalized the Illinois National Guard, so they're going to be called out. But Prisker could have done it three, four years ago. But he didn't do it. Why not?

No one knows. Okay? No one knows. 4,000 murder. Prisker sits there for six years, does nothing. Now, Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, is taking credit for the decline in crime in the Windy City. And that's a legitimate point that Johnson has. Okay. Johnson is racist, in my opinion.

He's blaming everything, you know, black people is. All right. But violent crime has come down a bit since Johnson's been in office. I don't know why. Don't know. Okay. But it has. So acknowledge that fact.

But you still, the national average of violent crime, Chicago's way above it. Way above it. You can't just say, we're not. doing anything because crimes coming down a bit. No, you got dead bodies in the street. Last week, 29 people who shot. 29. One weekend. Wasn't even a holiday weekend. Now we got Columbus Day or Indigenous Day, whatever day, coming up three-day weekend. I mean, you probably have 40 or 50 a shot. Criskey Kid, no. Johnson, oh, it's coming down. All right, fine. me like about 500 of them, some from Texas, some from Illinois. And they're going to be protecting

ICE agents on immigration raids. That is the reason they're there. And you know, as we reported yesterday, that the Chicago Police Department isn't protecting the ICE agents. We'll play you the tape in a moment. You know that. And that somebody's got to protect them. If the Chicago cops aren't the state troopers aren't going to do it, who's going to do it? National Guard has to do it. And the Guard is there, to be honest, to tamp down a crime in the poor Southside areas where these drug gangs are shooting down people at will. Now, they're not going to say that because you're not supposed to use the U.S. military to enforce local and state law. They'll say, we're protecting ice agents.

So we played this yesterday, but it's worth repeating. Ten cars full of protesters approached three ice agents on Saturday. A shootout occurred. One of the protesters was shot. Of course, the Chicago police knew about it almost immediately, and units were on their way to the scene. And then the dispatcher said this. Roll it.

And again, per the Chief of Patrol, we have all the units that per 999, Chief of Patrol said all units clear out from there. We're not sending anybody over to that location. 62, we're going to clear out as soon as we can. We're, like, blocked in over here. So we're going to do the best we can to get out of here as soon as we can. All right. Chief of Patrol is a guy named John Hine, H-E-I-N. I charge him with obstruction of a federal investigation, hindering a federal investigation. You can't do that.

Now, he may get off. Okay, due process, he'll have a defense, but I charge him. Let's see, another point of view. Joining us from Washington, Dwayne Keyes, former U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas. He is now practicing with the national security law firm in D.C. He's a lieutenant colonel

and the Arkansas National Guard. So would you charge him this chief of patrol? Check out the big stars, big series, and blockbuster movies. Streaming on Paramount Plus. Cue the music. Like NCIS, Tony and Ziva.

We'd like to make up her own rules. Tulsa King. Take out the competition. The substance. This balance is not working. And the naked gun. That was awesome. Now that's a mountain of entertainment.

Peramel. Ontario. The weight is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget Online Casino is live. Bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting. Signing up is fast and simple.

And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action, all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold at Golden. Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem, call Connects Ontario, 1866531-260, 19 and over, physically present in Ontario.

Eligibility restrictions apply. See Golden Nuggettcasino.com for details. Please play responsibly. I would probably need a few more facts before I charge you. I definitely see your thoughts, and I agree that there's something needs to be looked into. My number one concern bill is that police were en route. This was not something.

where, you know, maybe they didn't have the resources or they were responding to a mass They were going. They were going. They were going in route. I would also like to know, I would also like to know, you know, the ICE agents on the ground, did they know police were coming? I mean, were they told, you know, hey, help is on the way because if they were told that, they would have probably acted differently, you know, knowing that reinforcements are coming.

And then to pull them out in route, it's extremely disturbing for many reasons. I would like to know exactly this Mr. Heinz, Officer Heinz, I'd like to know comments that he made beforehand and afterwards because obstruction really goes that there's a mental state there that you've got to intentionally be trying to obstruct. His actions seem to indicate that. There's a few more details that I would like. But I will say this bill, even regardless of a criminal, you know, a criminal referral, I think there might be some civil issues here. I mean, you know, there is 43, 18 USC, 1983, which means that, you know, if someone acting under color of state law, you know, violate your rights, you know, they can be sued. I think there might be a lawsuit here, you know, these people had the right to be protected by the police. They had the right not to be fired upon.

And here it is the police had the ability to intervene and chose not to. They would have to do that as private citizens. But remember, there was a woman shot on the protest. She's a shot. She's in FBI custody right now. So it's the Chicago police departments jurisdiction, and they wouldn't answer a shootout when we got a bullet. Come on. And I'll tell you, I want to add to that, Bill, because this is not a question of a state or a municipality saying that we're not going to enforce federal law or we're not going to aid federal law enforcement officers. What you heard in that clip right there is these are

these are state officers, police officers who are refusing to intervene in state action. But they were ordered though. They were ordered by their superior. Don't go there. And you know that guy didn't do it on his own. Okay. That chief of patrol, he's got people above him the mayor, the police chief. And a police chief tried to say before we got the tape yesterday, Counselor, this is just for your information. Before we got the tape, and we got it almost first, the police chief went out and said, oh, no, no, we were answering the call. No, you weren't. Right. So I think that you're right. There has to be an investigation. FBI should be in there and putting it all together. But for me, if all the facts stay the way we know

them now and then you add other evidence. You got to indict. I'll tell you one other thing, Bill, that bothers me. And as you know, police officers are one of the few individuals. They actually have a duty to intervene when they see a crime happening. You know, you and I as regular citizens, we can walk down the street. If somebody is in need of help or whatnot, medical attention, we can walk right by and we haven't committed a crime. But a police officer, you know, cloaked in that authority, has a duty to act, has a duty to respond. And so to have sent them, had the manpower, had the resources, they were in route, and then to call them off, I mean, you're now violating state law.

So it's just a... Yeah, but the state will never... No, no, absolutely. It has to be a federal situation. One final question for you. Sure. The Trump administration obviously is moving to guard into Chicago. LA, Portland, Oregon, but there's a political component to this as well. And the political

component is that the president of the United States doesn't want to tolerate anarchy and lawlessness. Will that work for or against the federal government if any cases do go into court? I think it's going to work for the federal government. I think that the president has the absolute right under the Constitution to federalize National Guard, to send them in, to protect federal property. And that's just one aspect of it, just to protect federal property, absolutely. But then if the crime gets to the point, if the, the anarchy gets to the point that the president sees the need, that he's got to go in there and restore, restore law, he's got that he's got that authority to do. There's some, there's some checks he has to go through. But ultimately, this

has been tested, it's gone through the courts, and the president does have the power so long as he follows the law and goes through the correct procedure, yes, he can send the National Guard in to restore, to restore justice, to restore peace and law. Right. And Pritzker, the governor, I could have done that years ago, but didn't do it, nobody knows what, correct? Absolutely. And in fact, even when the president federalized the National Guard and sends them in, they can do it in a cooperation agreement. There is a way for a cooperation agreement so that Pritzker will still have command and control

of the National Guard from his state but will act in relationship and cooperation with the federal government. President Trump actually asked Pritzker to do that. He requested in writing that Pritzker cooperate with the feds and to get this murder rate under control and to guard ICE agents and federal property.

And then Pritzker said, no, again, no reason, you know, militarization and all that. All right, Counsel, thanks very much. I appreciate your time. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the NoSpin News, visit Bill O'Reilly.com

and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Bill O'Reilly.com. Sign up and start watching today. Thank you.