All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
30:52
Bill O'Reilly - March 13th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Hi, Leonard Skynyrd, simple man.
All things simple man can only mean one thing on this radio program, and that is all things self-proclaimed, simple man, meaning all things O'Reilly.
And that's Bill O'Reilly, all things of Bill O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
Mr. O'Reilly, sir, great to have you back on the program.
I had an opportunity to see Bill recently.
You know, for an old guy, you look pretty good.
Yeah, it's all like Botox, you know.
By the way, you're like me.
I mean, there are people in our business, men and women, that do that stuff.
You know, fillers and Botox and surgery.
And, you know, that's never happening with me.
I don't know about you.
I don't think you're going to do it either.
No, I'm going out the way I came in.
Well, no, no, no.
You're a lot cuter when you came in, Bill.
Yeah, that's for sure.
I mean, it went downhill after the day three of O'Reilly on the planet.
Quick story.
I was caddying for Peter Jennings years ago on ABC.
I did the afternoon news briefs before General Hospital.
And Jennings is out for a few days.
And I had to up my news brief thing.
He usually did it, but he didn't like to do it.
So when he was in a SNT, I would get the call and run down and do it.
So he comes back from his brief vacation wherever he was, and he had his eyes done.
Oh, wow.
Yeah.
And he walks in, and I used his makeup person because that's where the news brief studio was.
And I look at him, he looks at me, and I went, by the way, that was before it was as common as it is.
All right.
Let me start with topic number one.
And it's a topic that I'm passionate about, and I'm very angry about it.
And this is the topic of we don't have equal justice or equal application of our laws anymore, Bill.
Now, I'm going to give a long setup, and then I'm going to hand you the ball.
Hillary Clinton, we know, had top-secret, classified information on her servers.
We know she deleted 33,000 emails.
We never got to see those.
We don't know what was on it.
She introduced a new word to the lexicon.
I'd never heard of bleach bit before.
I'm pretty sure you probably had not either.
Then we know about devices, BlackBerry's iPhones destroyed with hammers.
And then, of course, all of this in July of 2016, James Comey lays out top-secret, classified information, chains, destroyed materials, et cetera, et cetera.
But no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
Now we have Robert Hurr, and Robert Hurr investigates Joe Biden, and he's got top secret, classified documents in seven separate locations if you include different locations within one's house.
Actually, it's eight.
And the Penn Biden Center, University of Delaware, his one home with the Corvette, the other beach home.
And what did we learn?
We learned that it's very likely he took out top secret information out of a skiff.
And for those people that don't know what a skiff is, if you have the right clearance, you get to see classified material, but you have to leave it there.
And he left it there.
And he didn't leave it there.
He took it with him.
We learned that, in fact, Joe Biden had all of this information, actually bragged to a ghostwriter of his.
Oh, I found more top secret, more classified information in my basement.
Let me go get it.
He not only went to get it, but he read it to the guy who didn't have a security clearance.
And what did we hear?
That he willfully retained these documents, and he didn't get raided, and he didn't get charged.
Then without going into all the details, because this audience knows it, Mar-a-Lago, the treatment of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump had already allowed the FBI free access to Mar-a-Lago.
They found the documents in a particular room.
They didn't take them with them that day, which is odd.
And they only called back a couple of days later and said, would you mind putting an extra lock on that door, a padlock on that door?
And they complied with that.
It was nothing that would have prevented them from coming back and taking what they thought was necessary to hand over.
And I look at this system.
I think America cannot survive as a republic, a constitutional republic, if we don't have equal justice under the law and equal application of our laws.
What say, Mr. O'Reilly?
Well, number one, the cases demonstrate it's all about will.
So prosecutors have discretion about bringing cases that they'll prosecute or not.
Everybody knows that.
It's under the law.
In Biden's case, there was a motive.
He got an $8 million advance for the book that you just mentioned, $8 million.
That's how he bought his beach house.
So in order to bolster the book, he took the documents, which he was not entitled to because he was vice president.
It's even worse because Trump was president.
Biden was vice president.
No vice president can take any classified information out of Washington.
He did.
So he would have been convicted, Biden.
I believe.
I don't believe her when her says, oh, I don't think I would have got a conviction.
I don't believe that.
I think Hurr did what he was told to do.
Maybe not directly told, but kind of, yeah, make Biden look bad.
We have to do that.
Just like Comey made Hillary Clinton look bad.
And remember, Hillary Clinton blames Comey for her loss.
Make Biden look bad, but we don't really want to do this.
It's going to hurt the country.
And that's what Hurd did.
So, but they didn't do the same.
You actually said the key word, the first word you said, and I pay very close attention when you speak, you said, will.
Well, her found that Joe Biden willfully retained these documents.
And then his argument was, well, I had to factor in presenting this evidence to a jury, and they would likely find him as a kind, very forgetful old man, incapable of really understanding the magnitude of what he was doing, even though it happened in many cases years prior.
And to me, that's not his decision to make.
That's a jury's decision to make.
But this is the reality, Bill.
We don't have equal justice or equal application of our laws.
This is now a lawless society with a weaponized Department of Justice, a politicized Department of Justice.
And if that's the case, our republic is crumbling before our eyes.
It's worse than you portray it, Hannity.
I'm being nice to you.
It's worse because Hurd, that's not his job.
It's not his job to handicap a prosecution.
It's his job to compile the evidence and present the evidence to a grand jury.
Correct.
That's his job, not the handicap.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
That's not your job.
Well, what he's really said, but think through this a little more deeply.
What he's saying is, is that Joe Biden is not competent enough to stand trial.
But that's not what he's saying.
But he kind of is.
He's saying, yeah, he's a doddering old fool that can't stand trial.
He's only doing that to cover his butt.
Agreed.
He's too old to do that.
You've got to make them look bad so that it doesn't come back on Merrick Garland, the Attorney General.
I got a guy on the Notes Bin News, my TV broadcast tonight named William Trackman.
He's a general counsel for the Mountain States Legal Foundation.
I noticed you never invite me on your show.
What's up with that?
You know what?
I'm going to now hold you to that.
I'm going to regret that.
Go ahead.
Anyway, I'm going to ask him exactly what you're saying.
That's going to be my first question to Trachman.
Look, most Americans don't believe that the Justice Department is interested in justice.
It's politics.
And there's a lot of stuff to back that up.
So when you indict a guy, when you arrest and charge a guy for falsely telling the FBI that he gave $5 million to Hunter and Joe, and then you don't arrest all the guys who lied to the FBI about Russian collusion, what is that?
Can any constitutional republic survive this system?
Well, I don't know about that.
I don't like to deal in hypotheticals, but I can say with certainty.
Bill, it's not a hypothetical.
This really happened.
No, but I can say with certainty that this Justice Department presently is corrupt.
Now, whether we can survive the corruption down the road, that's, I don't know.
Let me give you one more.
So I had a debate last night with a guy who was basically a constitutional expert.
And he was saying that even though the Constitution states the Eighth Amendment, that a government cannot excessively fine an American citizen, and they did that, the Founding Fathers, because the power of the state and federal governments can ruin you by incredible harsh punishments, cruel and unusual.
So everybody agrees that the fine leveled against Trump's organization in New York City is insane.
Trump does not have a good chance of getting that into the federal system.
So that means if Trump's lawyers cannot get their appeal into the federal system, New York State, a corrupt state, is never going to reverse the fine, in my opinion.
Maybe they'll lower it a little bit, but that means that any state can destroy any single American citizen by bringing cases against them.
And then if found guilty in a civil proceeding, say, hey, you owe the state a billion dollars.
I mean, that is unbelievable.
That's what Putin does.
All right, quick break.
We'll come right back more with all things simple man Bill O'Reilly, all things O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com as we continue.
All right, we continue now.
All things simple man Bill O'Reilly is with us.
Let me ask you the next question.
I want to move on to a second topic.
Two topics for you today.
And that is we now have it's official.
It's going to be Biden and Trump.
I want Bill O'Reilly to handicap the race with just 236 days to go until we reach Election Day.
All right.
Something's going to happen.
And you have this on tape now, the Hannity Radio program, to define this election more vividly.
Something will happen.
I don't know what it is, but I know something will happen.
So to handicap it is basically, all right, we're in a moment in time, but that moment in time is going to change drastically.
Yesterday, I picked up on the Biden budget, and I wrote a message of the day on billoreilly.com that the man is asking in one year for the federal government to seize.
$7.3 trillion, Bill.
That's a lot.
That's not just a lot, Hannity.
That's socialism.
That's bankruptcy.
$3 trillion less than the government will take in in tax revenue.
In order to make up that $3 trillion, you would have to seize private property in this country.
And that's what socialists and communists do.
Now, it is unconstitutional.
This budget will never pass.
It'll never get through.
But this is what Biden wants.
The progressive left wants a socialist country, not a capitalist country.
Yet, I would say one out of 10 Americans understand the danger.
They don't understand this.
And the corporate media will never report it.
And then, of course, the next logical question is, why would the corporate media support socialism when it's going to come in and take their money, Disney's money, Comcast's money?
Why would they support that?
Because they will pass the costs of higher corporate taxation on to the consumer.
Just like all the lawsuits against big oil and big corporations, who pays?
We, the folks, Bill.
The folks pay.
Take your urchins to Disney World.
You'll pay 30% more if Biden succeeds in raising the corporate tax.
But people don't understand it.
And that is what's driving me crazy.
And there's no central force in this country to explain it to them.
So there's you and me, and there are others that do what we do.
But the massive giant apparatus of information either distorts or ignores this $7.3 trillion budget, which is insane.
It's not, you know, wrong.
No, it is a formula for what does socialism always end with?
It ends with more poverty, unfulfilled promises, and then when it's all said and done, how much of your freedom did you give up in the name of false security because the government never fulfills their promises?
All things simple man, Bill O'Reilly at BillO'Reilly.com, sir.
Thank you.
All right, let me play for you what I thought was maybe one of the more interesting questions and answers.
And this was put to Robert Hurr yesterday by California Congressman Kevin Kiley.
And the question was simple.
Would a reasonable juror, you know, could they have convicted Biden based on the facts?
Because that was one of the biggest arguments that Hurr was making.
Well, he'd come off as we'd be unlikely to get a conviction because he's old and doddering and forgetful and he seems to come off as nice.
Anyway, listen to this exchange.
Based on the facts in anticipation of defenses presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have voted to convict?
As I said in the report, some reasonable jurors may have reached the inferences that the government would present in its case in chief.
So a reasonable juror could have voted to convict based on the facts that you presented.
Correct.
Now, why then does he justify not bringing this to trial?
Because that was the whole point.
Yeah, he did all this.
Yeah, he willfully took the documents.
Yeah, he bragged to his ghostwriter that he had them in the basement and actually, Lo, let me read them to you.
I didn't have any clearance to have this information.
Anyway, then here's Robert Hur, you know, saying, I didn't exonerate Biden.
Congressman, that is one statute that we analyzed.
I need to go back and make sure that I take note of the word that you use, exoneration.
That is not a word that you use in the report, and that's not part of my task.
I'm going to continue with my questions.
I know that the term sufficient evidence existed such that the likely outcome was a conviction.
I know that the willful resumption has a conviction.
Mr. Hurr, it's my time.
Oh, how annoying.
Anyway, joining us is the Congressman Kevin Kiley from California.
He's on the House Judiciary Committee.
What a revealing answer.
I didn't catch that till today.
I mean, I watch as much as I can, but I didn't catch it until early this morning.
Good for you for asking that question, but doesn't that kind of blow his entire narrative that doddering old, forgetful, nice, and kind Joe would not likely get a conviction?
Yeah, well, it was certainly interesting.
And honestly, it blew out of the water the entire approach that the Democrats on the committee took to the hearing, which you just played, a portion of that.
Jerry Nataler opened his opening statement by saying this report exonerates Biden, which is obviously not what it does.
So, you know, let's just, and people will debate whether he made the right decision or not in not bringing charges.
Well, wait a minute.
Should we really be debating that in light of the fact that all the evidence we had in the Hillary Clinton case that ended in July of 2016, even though top secret classified information on her server?
And unlike President Trump, she did not have the ability to declassify things.
And then, of course, 33,000 deleted emails.
Then, of course, the destruction of the servers with bleach bid and the destruction of devices with hammers and SIM cards removed.
And then in the case of Biden, you know, when you really get down to it, eight separate locations, they found classified information, some in different rooms of the House, but eight separate locations.
And wait a minute.
And then he's going to brag to his ghostwriter, oh, I found more classified documents.
Let me go get them and read them to you.
Well, he didn't have a security clearance, did he?
Exactly.
That's exactly right.
And not only that, you know, in the report itself, it says that Biden was extremely careless, irresponsible.
It says that he jeopardized U.S. national security for the purpose of promoting his own presidential ambitions and making money from selling books.
But even if we accept, you know, the her report's decision as it is, for the Democrats to come out and say that this is an exoneration, so egregiously misunderstands the nature of the report.
I mean, you know, what her is saying is that in order to file charges, he had to be confident that each and every one of the 12 people on the jury would find each and every element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
And the reason he says he didn't bring the charges is because he couldn't have that confidence to have that level of absolute unanimity at that higher pleading standard.
So that's why I asked him the question about the reasonable juror.
He said, look, there's a lot of evidence here.
You presented in your report based upon that evidence.
Could a reasonable person just looking At it, say, yes, this guy is guilty.
And so that's when he said, yes, absolutely.
Good.
Well, I mean, I got into this with Bill O'Reilly just in the last half hour of this program.
And the issue is, what does it say about our great Democratic Republic if we don't have equal justice and equal application of our laws?
Because when you compare the cases of Hillary Clinton and to the treatment of her and the treatment of Joe Biden in his case, and what they did to Donald Trump raiding Mar-a-Lago, and even though the FBI had previously been in the exact room where the documents were, and nobody was going to stop them from taking them out of Mar-a-Lago, and the only thing they asked for was that they put a padlock on it a couple of days later, which they complied with.
Nobody said they couldn't come back if they thought that there was material, if they thought there were materials there that shouldn't have been there.
I'm sure they would have been granted access.
What does this say about our country?
What does this mean for our constitutional republic?
Well, I mean, it's deeply, deeply troubling.
Maybe one of the big takeaways is if you're going to go around prosecuting your political opponents, maybe you better be sure that you're not yourself doing the exact same thing.
But, you know, one of the truly perverse implications of the report, which I also brought up at the hearing, is that by the very terms of Hurr's report, he actually used Jack Smith's indictment of President Trump as a reason not to indict President Biden because he said that maybe there's a need to prosecute someone in order for there to be a deterrent effect so that no one does this in the future.
But he says, well, that's already happened.
We already have an indictment.
We already have a prosecution.
So there's less of a need for another one.
I think that's a pretty perverse situation where the Biden administration made Biden less likely to be prosecuted by virtue of prosecuting President Trump.
Do you believe that the Department of Justice under Joe Biden and Murray Garland has been weaponized and politicized?
I mean, I think there's abundant evidence of that everywhere that we look.
And I think that if you look through the report of Mr. Hurr, plenty of that is documented there as well.
Now, Congressman, look, it's no shock that Democrats lost their mind.
Fascism, Nazism, the Klansmen, you know, in their defense, of course, of all things, Biden.
But it really, they went off the rails yesterday.
Listen.
It's not a memory test for President Biden.
It's a memory test for all of America.
Do we remember fascism?
Do we remember Nazism?
Do you remember communism and totalitarianism?
Have we completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents and prior generations?
What Joe Biden does and understanding Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid are important institutions that help seniors, not senile people.
I mean, I object to that comment for people.
See, nobody suggests he's senile, and that's disrespectful of senior people with any kind of memory disability.
You are a Republican, though, aren't you?
I am a registered Republican.
Yes, sir.
And you're doing everything you can do to get President Trump re-elected so that you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps to another position in the Department of Justice.
Isn't that correct?
Congressman, I have no such aspirations, I can assure you.
You chose a general pejorative reference to the president.
You understood when you made that decision, didn't you, Mr. Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you?
Republicans have used the special counsel's report to further their long-standing efforts to re-elect, re-elect the former white supremacist in chief, Donald Trump.
All right.
Well, good job.
I really appreciate you spending time with us.
Kevin Kiley of California, great question.
Great answer yesterday that you were able to elicit from Robert Hur.
Thank you.
Too bad.
Thanks for having me, Sean.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll get to your phone calls.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
Final hour roundup is next.
You do not want to miss it.
And stay tuned for the final hour free-for-all on the Sean Hannity show.
All right, let's hit our busy phones.
800-941, Sean.
I thought we banned Lewis the liberal from Houston.
Didn't I ban you, Lewis?
I should have banned you.
I don't know why I didn't ban.
You know why?
Because I'm a nice person and I love people with opposing views on this show.
How are you?
I'm great.
I'm great.
But if you also recall, our views weren't always so opposing.
And as of right now, I would have to venture to say that our views are more in tune than ever before.
I just said Lewis the Lib simply because I wanted to make sure you remember me.
Oh, I remember you.
How could I forget you?
I mean, we got two of our best and favorite callers out of Houston, you and big time AJ from Houston, Texas.
Yes, indeed.
Yes, indeed.
Now, I miss Linda, if you're listening.
Hi, how are you?
Long time.
Why are you sucking up to her and kissing her?
That's not a suck up.
I got Lewis back in the day when I was still a call screener.
Me and Lewis go way back.
Oh, man.
Hers was the first voice I ever heard on your show.
It wasn't on the show.
It was behind the scenes.
But go ahead.
Suck up to Linda all you want.
No, no, no.
Actually, I just wanted to call and say that as far as Lewis to live, I guess I'll be more like the Lewis more conservative now than ever.
In that right now, I'm so, you know, the Democratic Party has basically become the party of hypocrisy.
You can see it just in every day.
Like you was just, like you were just speaking with the congressman from California when he was, when you brought up Hillary Clinton and what all she destroyed, the computer, the cell phones, the chips, and all of those files that she destroyed.
Isn't that called tampering?
I mean, I think I'd call it obstruction.
Yeah, big time.
Yeah.
I would say either way it go, it was a crime.
Like you said, she took stuff and didn't have the authority to do it.
Vice president, well, when he was vice president, Biden had him in, like you said, six or eight different rooms out in his garage next to his Corvette.
But they're saying, when you listen, I watched The View this morning.
I know you're going to love that I did that.
Why would you ever watch that hard-hitting news show, The View?
All right, go ahead.
Well, honestly, you have to understand.
I watch it because, like you, I have to have opposing views.
And I'm going to be honest with you.
I don't agree with none of them that they say.
I mean, to be honest with you, in that when they're talking about like with Biden, they want to prosecute President Trump to the fullest extent of the law.
They want him so far under the jail, they'd have to mail sunlight to him.
But you have a guy who just four years prior did the exact same thing, if not more egregiously, because he's the vice president.
He can't declassify a darn thing, if I'm not mistaken.
You are not mistaken, nor could Hillary Clinton.
You're making great points.
You're on a roll.
You're doing well.
exactly now so i'm well let me ask this question only because of the constraints of time Does that mean now you're going to vote for Trump?
Is that what you're telling me?
Yeah, I'm going to.
I voted for him the first time.
Now, I'm not going to lie.
I got scared the second time because of the pandemic.
And that was the biggest mistake of my life.
I'm still kicking myself.
Yes, you can fault me for that on that as well.
I have one other point, if I may make it.
When you were just speaking about abortion, from a personal standpoint, no, I don't believe in accepting cases of rape, incest, or threatening the mother and or child fighter care of the baby determined.
However, and I guess you would say for political reasons, I would say more for just the fact that the government doesn't have the right to be in a person's bedroom or in the doctor's office.
I don't think that it should be illegal.
I do, however, feel that not one red cent of taxpayer money should fund it.
If you want to have an abortion, if you did, if this is what you truly want to do for whatever I call excuse you have, that's fine.
Just be willing to pay for it all out of your own pocket.
My tax money should not have to go for it.
I'm not going to tell you not, I'm not going to tell you you can't do it.
I'm telling you, I'm going to want to pay for it.
Just like if I wanted to go have augmentation to my nether region, no one's going to want to pay for that for me.
That's for my benefit.
I feel the same thing should go for abortion.
Well, I got to tell you, I think you're right on the money, and I think that's a politically, I think, a fair decision.
And then, and if liberals feel so strongly that, well, poor people won't have access, that's fine.
I can live with that, but let them fund it.
You know, see, liberals, the left, they're only generous with other people's money, not their own money.
But I got to run, Lewis the Lib, we love you, man.
God bless you, and talk to you again soon.
I hope.
800-941-Sean is our number.
All right, picture of this.
You're driving on the open road.
You have your family.
You're seeing beautiful views.
All this country has to offer.
And then out of nowhere, uh-oh, you hear that noise, whatever that noise is, and your car breaks down.
Okay, very frustrating, also dangerous.
You can feel protected if you have a plan with my friends at CarShield.
Now, CarShield has helped millions of drivers from having to pay back-breaking car repair costs.
I had a friend recently, had a fender bender, $14,000, more than $14,000 in damage.
Can you believe it?
Somebody else I know needed a new engine.
That was $12,000.
Wow.
Anyway, plans can be expensive, you know, and a lot of people don't have that kind of money for an out-of-pocket repair out of nowhere.
And if your car is out of warranty, whether your car has 5,000 miles or I don't care, 150,000 miles, CarShield has plans for you.
You get protection on over 5,000 major parts and systems.
You just make a phone call.
They'll be there for you in mere minutes.
800-587-5060.
They'll take care of big money items like your transmission, your engine, electronics, so much more.
And if you're on the road with your family, they offer roadside assistance 24-7.
CarShield is there to help you move forward after a major repair, but you have to call before the breakdown.
Anyway, protect yourself.
Call now, 800-587-5060.
Mention my name.
You get 20% off.
Go to their website, carshield.com/slash Hannity.
That's Carshield.com/slash Hannity.
You know, by now, we all know of the atrocities that were committed by Hamas on October the 7th, which kicked off this war with Israel.
Now, Israel is fighting for their very existence.
Now, the toll on the Israeli people has been staggering.
You have hundreds of thousands of Israelis.
They have been forced from their homes.
Entire communities are torn apart.
Lives have been devastated by death and destruction.
Now, thankfully, there are groups like the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.
They're right there in the middle of it, have been from day one.
They're distributing critical essentials like food, medicine, emergency supplies for hundreds of thousands of Israelis that are suffering.
The need is great.
We're partnering with the IFCJ.
Every donation urgently needed immediately.
And by the way, give as much as you can today because your gift will be matched by some generous donor and you'll be basically donating twice the amount.
Now, the website is supportifcj.org.
▲
Export Selection