Hey BillOReilly.com Premium Members welcome to the No Spin News Wednesday September 12th 2018. Take your country back.

All right we've got a big time guest today, Judge Ken Starr warming up in a bullpen. I'm going to get to him quickly. But first, I just want to set it up with a new poll by Quinnipiac University out in Connecticut. It says that Democrats hold a 14 point lead over Republicans on the generic House ballot. That means 14 percent more Americans would prefer to see a Democrat in the House and the vote is in about eight weeks. So you look at this poll and you go ohhh, pretty bad for the Republican Party, but then you look at how the poll was done, 25 percent of respondents to the Quinnipiac poll are Republican, 34 percent Democrat. So the poll is garbage. It's just, it's got to be 50-50 guys. All right to come up with any, you can do heavy independent as they did here, 33 percent independent. But you can't do a 9 point Democrat, a plurality in a poll. I mean of course, you're going to have a 14 point lead. So, anyway I don't believe the poll but I do believe that the Republican Party is in trouble right now.

The reason is that President Trump is so controversial and there are many independent voters which will decide the election, the midterms that think he's too chaotic. Then you have the special counsel Robert Mueller, where every day we have leaks and every day we have chaos and every day we have, well this happened or didn't happen, or whatever it goes on and on and on and on.

So let's bring in former special counsel Judge Kenneth Starr, he is the author, brand new book, "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation", Judge nice to have you here. We'll get to the Clintons later because the big story is Robert Mueller versus Donald Trump. As you know I'm a simple man, I'm going ask very simple questions. The first one is that the president has agreed to answer Mueller's questions in writing under oath. If you were Mueller, if you were the special counsel now, would that be enough?

"Probably not. I don't know what Bob Muller knows but probably not. You want to be able to look the witness in the eye and test his credibility."

So, the Trump lawyers say there's no way that's going to happen, an in person interview under oath because the President's memory isn't the best and he's prone to saying things shooting from the hip. OK. Or shooting from the lip. So we're not going to put him in a position where he could make a misstatement and be charged with perjury. Does that make any sense to you?

"Oh yeah. If I'm a criminal defense lawyer, I would be saying the same thing. But the problem is this person is the President of the United States, which puts him in a unique position. He is a witness, hopefully for the sake of the country, as well as for the sake of the presidency, he is only a witness or a potential witness, who may have relevant information. But from the perspective of the President of the United States, what does that mean, what does that carry in terms of responsibility. That's what the President is going to have ultimately sort out. It's going to be is judgement, his call.".

Well his call is going to be I am not going to go in there and testify, I can tell you that right now. And he's demonized the investigation as you very well known to the point where his supporters will cheer that decision. They'll say yeah you're smart not to go in because this whole thing is, as the President says is a witch hunt and now if he does declassify documents that show the FBI and the Justice Department used false information to obtain FISA warrants to surveil his campaign the whole thing may blow up. Do you disagree?

"I don't disagree, that could be a game changer. Again, we don't know what we don't know. But what we may be able to find out is, how evil was the launching of the investigation, how off course did certain people the FBI go. I'm a big admirer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I've worked with them over the years but there are some bad apples and we've identified several bad apples, at least three that I can name, and they were very influential people. So if in fact it looks as if the investigation at the outset was really seriously tainted, that gives him a pretty strong leg to say, look I'm not going to go into something where there have as we say in the law, so many poisonous fruits from the tree."

Absolutely, and that's what's likely to happen. Now the question becomes does Robert Mueller issue a subpoena to the President to show up for an in person interview, based upon a country divided. Half the country doesn't want the President to testify half does. Does Mueller disrupt the presidency to that extent? Your prediction?

"My prediction is that Bob, Mueller will, will push it. Now that depends on what he knows and what he thinks he needs to know. Right. He doesn't need to subpoena the President if what he's doing is simply winding down or winding up but if he thinks he's got to have, based on the President's written responses, his written answers, he needs further information or he needs to test the credibility, than he may say I'm going to, for the second time in history subpoena the President of the United States. We did it to President Clinton as I described in the book and so we'll see. Bob may decide based on what he knows, I've got to do it, it's my duty to do it."

Now you won that and President Clinton did testify. That was a famous depends what is, is. But here with all of the other things that we have which include texts from two FBI high ranking agents saying we got to stop Trump, all right, we got to stop him. I think this subpoena if they challenge in the courts, which certainly the Trump administration will, that could be three or four years before it gets to the Supreme Court, right?

"No, it'll go, it could. But more likely than not it'll be expedited. Put on a super-fast track. You know the Supreme Court has in the past decided an issue the Pentagon Papers case and so forth, things that are really go to our governance that are vitally important issues to free people, to the presidency and so forth, it could expedite and get it decided in a couple of months."

That's interesting. Do you from your vantage point as an American citizen and a former judge, prosecutor, do you see a potential crime involving Donald Trump?

"Not at this time. Not at all. The things that have been asserted to the best of my knowledge, all go to his exercise of power, whether it's a wise exercise of power but being wise or not wise is not a crime and so obstruction of justice was thrown around many months when collusion or conspiracy didn't seem to be gaining any legs. And by the way, the two indictments that Bob Mueller did return that are just square on in terms of Russian involvement, don't hint at collusion or conspiracy. Not a word points in that direction."

OK. So you don't see any crime right now. But again you don't know what Mueller has or neither do I. So, that puts Mueller in a very difficult position because his investigation may very well influence the midterm elections, may very well influence it. OK. And yet he has not come out with anything and he could come out in a press conference, say hey, look I want to update all the all the folks, this is where we are right now, this is what we're looking at, not going to give you specifics but this is how it's trending. So you've got, you've got a guy Mueller who's investigation is going to influence the vote and is disrupting the President of the United States from doing his job. That is ultra, ultra-serious on both counts. Doesn't Mueller have a responsibility to put forth some clarity on this?

"Yes he does. I think there is accountability which I give a special counsel but part of that accountability is, hey you're not supposed to take action that can foreseeability affect the outcome of a midterm election. That's standard Justice Department operating procedure and Bob Mueller is duty bound to follow that. So I'd really be surprised, I'd be stunned if he pulled a Comey, if he decided to hold some sort of press conference talking about the investigation of the President of the United States, I think he will remain behind the scenes. They'll continue to probably wrestle if they don't come to a great mediated solution, with respect to how the President is going to present his position in response to the questions. But anyways, I don't think in the eight weeks that remain before the election that Bob Mueller will take action, as did Jim Comey, that could foreseeably and have an effect on the midterm election.

But just the fact that he's investigating, does have that very same effect. I tend to agree with you it's not Mueller's style to do it. He likes to go by the book and when the FBI is asked about a pending investigation, oh we have no comment, yet they leak like hell, Judge. They leak like hell and we saw that now with the new memos between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. All right. So is that right? When you were investigating the Clinton's did you have a leak problem?

"No. We certainly dealt with reporters, we are public officials after all, and Bob Mueller has a public spokesperson. We were constantly accused, Bill of leaking inappropriately or improperly or even illegally. But we were vindicated, there was a special master appointed by the chief judge, so our hands were, our hands were clean. But we've got to put a stop to this and so there are ways to carry on a leak investigation. When I was chief of staff to the attorney general we had clearly a leak coming out our office so I authorized a full range investigation. You put people under the polygraph and so forth, you don't want that to happen."

It can't happen. I'm glad to hear that because I've been saying polygraphs have to be used to stop this. This is not justice leaking to hate Trump newspapers and then it takes on a life of its own. OK. In your book, and I recommend that everybody buy "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation", because it does directly affect what's happening now. You have the same position that Robert Mueller has. You have a President of the United States, same thing, not the same scenario. But the shocking thing you write is that you believe that Hillary Clinton lied to you and your investigators, while being quizzed about Whitewater.

"Right.".

But you didn't bring charges of perjury against her. Why?

"Because we did not have admissible evidence to prove what we knew. Prosecutors frequently say there's difference of what I know and what I can prove.".

Give me an example of what you knew and what why you couldn't prove it.

"We could not prove for example, certain things with respect to her relationship to the Rose Law Firm, why those records of the Rose law firm was missing. We had missing witnesses. Vincent Foster Jr. who was one of the suspects, had taken his own life. Webster Hubbell, who was another partner in the Rose law firm was not cooperating with us. With respect to her relationship to Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan, that's failed, fraud infected savings and loan. We could not get Susan McDougal's cooperation, she was one of the co-owners of the bank. She was actively involved in the bank's administration.".

OK. You gave me enough, you gave me enough. What do you think Hillary Clinton did?

"Oh, I think she was knowingly involved in the Rose Law Firms administrate, excuse me representation of the failed savings and loan in ways that raise very serious questions about her personal knowledge. I'm not saying that she had personal knowledge.".

So she committed a fraud on the public because people lost their money on that bank, is what she did?

"She may have facilitated it but I think she was involved in the obstruction of justice, that's what I think, by virtue of what happened with the Rose Law Firm records which was eventually found in the residence...".

They disappeared and then they found them in the private residence of the Clinton's. So you believe that she didn't want the truth to come out about the bank and how it collapsed, all right and hid evidence.

"And hid evidence of her personal involvement in representing the bank."

OK. Now you also write in the book that you regret getting involved in the Monica Lewinsky situation. Why do you regret it?

"I think it would have been better for the country if Janet Reno than the attorney general had said, Ken you've brought this information to us, thank you. We're now going to appoint John Doe or Mary Rowe. You've been at this job for four years, you've been trying to leave, you're a controversial figure, this is going to be super controversial. So guess what, I'm calling up the national reserves, so to speak, I've got someone sitting over here who's ready to take on the case. I think it would have been better because by that point I had been vilified and attacked by the Clinton White House for four years. And those attacks take their toll and that's one of the reasons why echoes of yesterday and yesteryear, we see the President Trump's camp saying hey we're taking a page from the playbook of Bill Clinton and his lawyers."

Yeah, I mean you demonize the special counsel. But in this case with so many alleged improprieties on the part of the investigators, remember in your tenure there were no charges of improprieties, other leaks in your crew or any FBI, it was basically you guys are doing your job, they didn't like it. OK. Now the beef against Bill Clinton was that he lied about the Lewinsky thing, right? That was, that was the big thing there.

And obstructed justice by encouraging others to lie, by making arrangements or facilitating arrangements to get Monica Lewinsky out of the territory etc. So there was a whole variety of things that we outlined in the referral."

But just the relationship between a government intern and a president, doesn't rise to a misdemeanor or a felony does it?

"Absolutely not. What was at issue was the rule of law and his responsibility as a witness, first in the civil case brought by Paula Corbin Jones and then in particular in terms of the gravity of the situation, before a duly authorized federal grand jury and that investigation was authorized by the attorney general of the United States, that's when members of his own party, you'll recall, Bill, said Mr. President you lied, we know you lied in the deposition you shouldn't have done that. But now the real please don't do that, is to lie intentionally before the federal grand jury. And he did."

OK. So it looks to me there's a similarity that Clinton-Lewinsky wasn't a crime. It doesn't seem and you concurred that based upon what we know, President Trump committed any crime in his campaign, doesn't seem that way. So it's all after the fact, after the fact and some believe Rudy Giuliani among them, the President's lawyer, that Mueller is trying to trap Trump into a perjury beef. Do you see that?

"I don't but that's because I know Bob Mueller and believe him to be a man of integrity. I don't like some of the people who are around Bob Mueller who he chose to bring into senior positions in the investigation. But I trust Bob Mueller to be a Semper Fi, he's a Marine ,he's a public servant through and through. I think he's a person of rock ribbed integrity. But there are people around him whose judgment seems to be questionable.".

But that's on him, is it not? He selected those people.

"He did it's on his. Absolutely.".

That's one big mess isn't it, Judge.

"It is! It is absolutely. What I try to say in the book and I think it is pretty darn well, is we build and guardrails and safeguards to prevent these kinds of allegations from having serious weight. I'm not sure what Bob Mueller's response is to, why did you choose Andrew Weissmann and look at what Andrew Weissman one of the senior prosecutors did. I'm not accusing Andrew Weissman of anything. I'm simply saying when you have the issues of the appearance of partisanship you need to do something, like I did, which is bring in a Sam Dash a legendary Democrat who is involved in the effort to unseat Richard Nixon.".

That would be a smart move because this is tearing the country apart. I mean it's really tearing the United States of America apart and that's what concerns me the most. That it's a mess, I think that if President Trump declassifies, which somebody close to him told me that may happen next week, the whole, as you said, the whole thing's going to change. Judge, we wish you the best with the book, "Contempt", I hope we can talk again as this unfolds. It's very nice of you to speak with us today.

Hey, it's a pleasure, Bill. All the best to you and thanks everybody for focusing on this, it is very important to the country."

It is.

OK. As far as the declassification is concerned there is now another controversy about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two FBI people texting back and forth. You know them I can't go over this every time. But now it seems to be, that they were involved with leaking as we just talked with the Judge, that they had knowledge of leaks. Their e-mails show it. OK. And they were kind of going hey ummm, X Y and Z. Their lawyer said no they wanted to stop the leaks. I don't believe that for a second. Let's see the full text. Let's see the full thread. So President Trump, you've got to do this, you've got to put this stuff out. The country is getting torn apart.

All right I hope you enjoyed that interview with Judge Starr. You might compare it to the other interviews he does on television. I'm not going to brag but I think we got to the heart of the matter.

Chicago unbelievable. Rahm Emanuel, oh you know him, the Democratic mayor. He's not running again, the election is February 26 2019. New Mayor. Emanuel has screwed the city up almost beyond belief. Violence continues in the poor neighborhoods as black gangs shoot down innocent black people including children on a daily basis. And Emanuel has no clue how to stop it. So now on his way out he says you know what, we're going to implement universal basic income for the city of Chicago. What's universal basic income? That's giving a check, would be 500 bucks every month, something like that, to families to poor people. Writing a check to them. They want to do this in Sacramento, California as well. And just giving it to them, here is your money. Every month they'll select the families, whatever it may be and hopefully they'll expand that program so poor people will get an extra 500 from the city. All right.

Now, the city of Chicago currently owes 48 billion dollars. They owe that money. OK. They have in the bank, city of Chicago has in the bank, 7 billion. So they're 41 billion in the hole. Can't pay it. Now they want to add this kind of an entitlement, which, if you're going to do 1000 families what about all the others? You don't think they're going to sue. You don't think they're going to court going, hey where's my five hundred a month, where is it? This is so irresponsible and this is what the far left is all about.

Tomorrow, in New York City there is a primary between Cynthia Nixon and Andrew Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo is leftist, always has been. Cynthia Nixon's a crazy socialist. She'll get 25-28 percent of the vote, she'll lose. But this is what's coming. Now, how could they possibly pay for that? They can't, so they'd have to impose draconian taxation. I was talking about this to some kids the other day, school kids and saying do you realize that the progressive movement, once you get out to the world and start to work hard for your money, wants your money and if you're successful, they're going to take as much money as they can away from you and your family. They're going to forcibly take it away, through taxation. Do you understand that? Which is the essence of the progressive movement. We're going to take your money. You die, we're going to take everything you have and we'll dole it out. We'll dole it out. This is insane madness! That's what President Trump should be talking about pounding the table. This is what you want? These people are what you want in the Senate and the House? Income confiscater's? Instead of tweeting about the New York Times. That's what he should be doing. OK, don't want to go overboard.

So let's get to the mail.

John. On the message boards.

"Bill, enjoyed the interview with Sean Spicer, his answer to your question on why the press hates President Trump was spot on, because Trump doesn't need them."

OK.

Bruce on the message board.

"I think the new Strzok page e-mails are a real bombshell, do you think there's more to come from this? Or what is to come of these newly presented texts?".

We need the whole text. We need to see the whole thing before I can make a judgment of how bad it is going to be or what's going to come next.

Christine on the message board.

"Thank you for the informative, enlightening interview with Sean Spicer. It's very interesting to hear how he dealt with the mainstream media during his tenure as White House press secretary and to find out that he's a supporter of the Independence Fund."

Yes! IndependenceFund.org. Help them out.

Clifford on the message board.

"Bill, you criticize the media for using unnamed sources, yet you inform us that a Republican friend of yours told you the President is going to release FISA information next week. Why is that?".

Well what do you want? The guy I talked to said, please don't tell the audience my name. But this is what we're hearing. President Trump is going to declassify some stuff next week. OK. Now do I believe it? I don't know. I didn't say it was true, I just said what somebody told me. It wasn't disparaging of anyone, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't say well my friend told me so and so was so-and-so, never. I gave you information that was given to me. Do I take it that information to the bank? No. We'll see what happens.

Sharon on the message board.

"All the conspiracy theories suggestions are coming true. Why not report on it more, Bill? You have your connections you can bring more to light for the public to hear about."

Sharon, I'm not going to use speculation, I'm just, it's a waste of my time and your time. We get the facts then we'll go from there. I just, it just goes against everything I stand for.

Bob Ziner. Mobile, Alabama.

"Why would the President wait until next week to declassify the FISA warrant documents, assuming he does declassify them. The subject has been an issue for so long. Do you have any insight?".

I do not, I agree with you Bob. Should have been out a while back. And I get letters, well he's waiting for the midterms. Speculation.

Denise Keys. Poway, California.

"Just now listening to the news they are talking about Trump and how he's not using below was a campaign issue any longer. Can't someone start a Go Fund Me page for the wall?"

No. Cannot use private funds for public installations, you can't do that too much potential for corruption there, so you cannot do it.

OK doing a number of radio interviews for Killing the SS, setting it up that comes out October 9th. Tying the evil into the evil going on today. If you preorder Killing the SS on BillOReilly.com, we will give you free Old School: Life in the Sane Lane. Okay so it's a great deal, you can go to Amazon, you can go to Barnes and Nobel or wherever you want. Preorder it, you get it first, you'll like the book.

Killing Patton.. Out in paperback September 25th. That's coming up fast, two weeks. And if you buy Killing Patton and Killing Jesus in paper, 20 bucks on the website. Great deal. So keep that in mind.

And the reason we wrote Killing the SS is because we had the material, some of it left over from Killing Patton, flows right in, the two books like are synergized. And I'm very proud of both books.

12 million copies of the Killing books, 7 million of them in print. 12 million copies, this is the 8, Killing the SS.

Word of the day when writing to BillOReilly.com do not be a miscreant. Great word. And you concierge members, keep those, keep those questions rolling. I helped a woman today with her 17 year old son who was being exposed to some bad stuff. And I think I gave her very good advice on how to deal with it. I really like doing that. That's the kind of stuff, I mean, I answer the political stuff and you know, whatever else you're interested in. But I really like helping the kids, so if you got grandchildren, children and they're in a bind or something send it to me. And that's the benefit of Concierge Membership. OK. Good program. Thank you for being a Premium Member. We'll see you again tomorrow.