Hey BillOReilly.com Premium Members, welcome to the No Spin News, Thursday, September 13th 2018. Take your country back.

So the big story this week, not the dopey Trump tweets and you know, Bob Woodward, all that means zero, nothing. This means something, this Peter Strzok texts continue to be very disturbing because it's the FBI and now maybe the CIA and the defense intelligence people as well.

So let me go over this in a timeline because it's very confusing and then we're going to have Brett Tolman answer my questions and try to put it into perspective.

So President Trump, all right, is elected, he's elected in November of 2016. Shocks the country, including the FBI apparently. On December 9th 2016, about a month after the election, the New York Times publishes an article with the headline "Russian hackers acted to aid Trump in election U.S. says." Let me repeat that. "Russian hackers acted to aid Trump in election, U.S. says." And the article goes on to say, "American intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton's chances and promote Donald J Trump."

Now, right away this cast doubt on the legitmacy of the presidential election. It was obviously leaked to The New York Times. Alright, remember, it said, "U.S. says," so someone in the intelligence apparatus leaked this story to an unfavorable media outlet to Donald Trump. It's where we start.

Six days later. December 15 2016, Peter Strzok is texting his mistress, Lisa Page. Peter Strzok, the FBI investigator on Hillary Clinton e-mail and Russian collusion. Lisa Page, FBI attorney. They're having an affair. They text back and forth. I'm going to quote some texts.

"Oh, remind me to tell you tomorrow about the times." That's the New York Times, "doing a story about the RNC hacks," Page texts Strzok.

"And more than they already did?" Strzok replies. "I told you Quinn told me they are pulling out all the stops on some story." Now, Quinn is Richard Quinn, who is the FBI chief of media and investigative policy. OK, so Strzok and Quinn know the New York Times quote "pulling out all the stops."

Now, just that isn't damning. But then Strzok says, "think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they are kicking into overdrive." Our sisters. Most people think that's the CIA and the defense intelligence people.

Ok, then Strzok writes to Page, "and we need to talk about putting C reporting in our submission. They're going to declassify all of it." C reporting is classified reporting, OK. In our submission, I don't know what that is. OK.

January 10th 2017, inauguration getting close. New York Times publishes another story suggesting that Russian hackers gained limited access to the Republican National Committee just as Strzok had told his mistress that they would. The same day, an outfit called BuzzFeed publishes the dossier that had been compiled about Trump. Not true. It was all kinds of dirt in it. It came from Russia. We don't really know who it came from even to this day. But it was paid for by the Clinton campaign. That is published the same day the New York Times publishes another Russian hacker story. Both were leaked. Both were leaked.

Now, at this point, Peter Strzok should have gone to his superiors, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, and told them exactly what he knew about any leaks. Because he certainly knew stuff was going on. Did he? Doesn't seem like he did. Maybe Michael Horowitz will find out he did. I doubt it. I doubt it.

OK, the stuff goes on and on and builds into a media frenzy about Trump campaign Russian collusion. It goes on and on and on and on. Another text between Page and Strzok talks about the New York Times being angry with the FBI because the Washington Post got a story about Russian collusion that The Times didn't get. So apparently, the Times reporters called FBI, maybe Strzok himself, we don't know, and were yelling at them saying why didn't you give us the story, why didn't you leak us this story? So Peter Strzok, the lead investigator on Russian collusion is up to his eyebrows in leak stuff.

Now, to be fair, Strzok's lawyer says, oh he and Page wanted to stop all the leaks. I know all of you are going to go...you know, OK, but let's see what Horowitz comes back with. But Horowitz could come back with it in eight years. We have no idea.

Finally, does leaking break the law? If it's classified information, it does. So a Russian dossier in the hands of the FBI, I don't know whether that's classified or not. But any classified information leaked to the press by government employees is a crime. But even if there is no crime, Strzok and Page knowing about internal leaks and not reporting what they know is clearly a violation of FBI policy. OK.

Let's bring in Brett Tolman. You know him, he's been on the podcast many times. Very good guest. Former U.S. attorney for Utah, coming to us from Salt Lake City, knows the ins and outs.

Is there anything I've missed in describing the timeline of this story that you picked up, Brett?

"A couple of things. If you go back over the course of our podcasts, I count, Bill, nearly two dozen individuals that get named or are associated with leaks. So... and even including that designation in there of DD, that may be the deputy director. Could be the defense department. We don't know yet, but if it's the deputy director, that would be McCabe."

Right.

"Which suggests it's a lot of people and it could be very high. The second thing I would point out is you're right that leaking classified is clearly a crime, but now we're in the realm of Section 1030. 1030 is a little known statute in the federal system but it has a 20 year prison sentence potential. And that is knowingly accessing information, doesn't have to be classified, on computers in the FBI and then giving that to someone else knowingly, and it has the effect of injuring the United States. Now tell me that couldn't be proven if the facts are as they seem to be suggested right now."

OK. You don't want to convict anybody on television or however people are watching us now. Our sisters. Did you take that to mean CIA and Defense Intelligence? 

"I do. It is a term of art and it's recognized in the departments and the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice. It is often referred, when I worked in the counterterrorism area, it's referred to the counter-intelligence and intelligence entities."

All right, so that's almost a sure thing. So Strzok saying to his mistress, our sisters are political, they're panicking, they're doing all of these things, that seems to be pretty damning. Now, if Strzok knew that to be a fact, was he under an obligation to report that?

"Absolutely. Absolutely. Leaks of that nature, when they overlap in different agencies, if you have reason to think that another agency has leaked it, then he has an affirmative obligation to bring that to his superiors."

OK. Now we assume because these texts came to Congress through the Justice Department, that's how Congress got them, that Horowitz knows all of this now, right?

"Yes."

You would assume that he knows every bit of it. Because we're just getting dribs and drabs here. We're getting pieces of the puzzle. But he's got to have the full puzzle, does he not?

"That's right. I think that's why it's taking so long also. I think there's individuals that have probably tried to protect pretty fiercely the extent of what is released and what he's able to see. But since we have it now, he has that and probably more. It's probably the cause of why it's lengthened out the investigation."

So, in my analysis, the noose is tightening around leakers. That it's a good bet that Horowitz knows who the leakers are. He'd have to be squeezing and people and they're going to give up the leakers or they're going to jail. So it's a good bet that he knows who they are. All right. And it's got to come out.

"Yeah, I think he does know who they are. And what's interesting is up until this point, we've always talked about very general criminal statutes that could apply, you know, obstruction of justice, a thousand and one, which is you know, deception to a federal agency. But you may have Section 1030 violations here now, which is purposely accessing information from an executive branch agency, one that you know, you wouldn't want out there regardless of whether it's classified. And that's... that elevates the seriousness of this investigation that Horowitz is doing."

The FBI got a hold of this dossier, all right, that was put together by Fusion GPS. So, we don't know how they got it but they had it. All right. The dossier gets then put on an FBI computer, I would imagine in a secure situation.

"That's correct."

 They don't just give it out to everybody.

"That's right. There are red... sorry."

 Go ahead. No no, you tell me, go ahead.

"There are red files, which are files on the DOJ which are classified files and they are limited on who can access them."

OK, so this is a president of the United States who is now being accused in a dossier of awful awful things. The FBI has the accusations, the allegations, puts it in a red file, OK, only a few people see it, and apparently the FBI was trying to check some of this. The entire thing gets given to BuzzFeed, the entire thing. It had to come from the Justice Department, either the FBI or somebody in the Justice Department. Maybe the CIA had access to it. I don't know. But they're not supposed to be, the CIA, investigating stuff within the United States. So how bad a crime is that? Leaking something like that to BuzzFeed?

"It could be devastating to the United States. Think about when we prosecute just an individual and we protect them, we don't want out information that could convict them before they get their day in court. Here, it's the opposite mentality, it is let's get it out there because it can help us advance the position that we have. Any judge in a criminal case would have thrown this all out because it was an attempt by the government to illegally convict someone they were investigating. But here, it's secret court, it's FISA court. These are documents that are even more sensitive. They are limited in who sees them, supposed to be vetted. One judge gets to review it. For that information to leak, I don't see how you could argue that 1030 doesn't apply and a host of other potential criminal statutes that could apply if that was leaked purposely."

And it's not even verified, it's unverified stuff coming out of the Justice Department and the FBI, allegedly. BuzzFeed itself, shouldn't they be investigated here?

"Well, you know, it is interesting because the Obama administration did get aggressive utilizing some of these similar statutes with the media. It was very quiet. Nobody really talked about that. But even the Obama administration recognized that you could have an instance in which sensitive information is gathered by you know, knowingly gathered by the media. And you have to look at that. Obviously, the first amendment is a concern, but you don't get to override the first amendment by conducting criminal activities."

Yeah, I mean, if you're accepting stolen goods, right?

"That's right."

You are charged with a crime.

"That's right."

This, I could make a case, and I'm sure you could, you're much smarter than I am. This was stolen goods. They stole this from the FBI red file and they gave it to BuzzFeed, who accepted it and printed it even though it wasn't verified. 

"It's great that you brought that analogy up because this statute is right in the middle of statutes that are basically theft from government statutes. So that's..."

Right, and you stole it and you put it out, and the intent was to damage a man who was a President of the United States or is the President of the United States.

"That's right."

So I think all hell's going to break loose on this and I don't understand why President Trump isn't more aggressive in putting forth what's going on here. And we'll get into that in a minute, you don't have to get into that. And I know you've been following, Brett, the Susan Collins threats to her, the senator from Maine that these far left groups, one of them funded by George Soros, has said if you vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh we're going to put up 1.3 million dollars and give it to your opponent in the next race. So the senator herself, Collins, says this is a bribe, a kind of a reverse bribe. What would you say the criminality here is, the potential criminality?

"I would say it's a bribe if they're implying that the 1.3 could come to her instead."

No, but they're not.

"They're not. So then it's extortion and it's threat of extortion to indicate that you will give money to someone, or there will be some negative consequence to you if you don't vote a certain way. It's one thing for someone to stand up and say, hey if Senator Collins doesn't vote no on Kavanaugh, then I'm going to support her opponent and I'm going to work hard to get her out of office. Everybody can say that and do that. But I get just stunned at somebody coming out and saying, I have 1.3 million dollars, it's going to her opponent unless she votes this way."

I don't think anything's going to come of it myself, but I like the exposition. I like people knowing how the far left is working these days, because there's a lot of money being funneled around. There's a lot of people being paid to smear other people and to threaten other people. Brett, always a pleasure. Thanks very much for taking the time. As always, talk soon.

"Yep, great to be with you."

As I insinuated, President Trump should be out in front of this whole Peter Strzok thing and the whole leak thing. Instead, he's talking about the Puerto Rican storm of last year and he says 3000 people weren't killed. And a study says 3000 people were killed. This is last September 20th, Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. I just don't get it. I've got to tell you, you Trump supporters, maybe you can tell me on the message boards or Bill@BillOReilly.com. I'm just not getting it. Who cares? I mean, I care about the people who got hurt in the storm. But whose fault it is? Fingerpointing a year later?

Why would Mr. Trump even bother when he's got one of the biggest stories of the decade about to break on this leak business? I... just stunning. I told you when it happened that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is poorly run. It's disorganized. The infrastructure is a disaster. And even in nice weather, the place does not run efficiently. You get hit with a hurricane, you're going to get blasted because you don't have anything there that can respond quickly to disaster. That's the truth. OK.

George W. Bush. He's going to go out and campaign for some Republicans running for Congress in Texas, but he's not going to campaign for Senator Ted Cruz, who apparently is locked in a tight race with a progressive individual. So Newt Gingrich provided this analysis on the Fox News Channel... I'm sorry, on Laura Ingraham's radio show. Go.

"The Bushes represented an establishment. Ted Cruz is a populist. I think...you know, I think in some ways they see him as being like Trump. There are two wings of the Texas Republican Party and the establishment wing has been steadily losing ground and I think this is, you know, they resent it. But you know, the the party has been very very good to the Bushes and at some level it seems to me, you know, that they ought to at least consider being good to the party. And I think again, in some ways, there is a presidential establishment and they see themselves in some ways as closer to the Clintons and the Obamas because they're all in the club. But at one level, I don't blame them. Look, Trump was very tough about Bush's policies."

Yeah, there's no love lost between the Bushes and the Trump. Obviously, Jeb Bush and the president himself. So that brought me to thinking, one of the, one of the most controversial parts of President Trump's administration and the way he governs is that he does lash back when criticized and he lashes back quickly and in a way that's designed to get attention. His supporters generally like that. They think it's good. They think that these people attacking Trump need to be confronted. Bush did not do that, as you may remember.

And I told him in an interview on October 19th 2006 that I thought not hitting his opponents was hurting him. Roll the tape.

"People criticize me. I think I'm the second most criticized person in the country. You're first by a large margin but I'm second. I get really furious especially if it's dishonest. But you don't, you're different than I am, you're more philosophical. I mean, I'm sitting there going, if I hit this guy's neck, you know." 

"Well, I'm not as big as you are so I can't, you know, I wouldn't be able to get away with that. Look, I understand politics. Remember, I'm a man who watched a guy I loved dearly go through the same thing I'm going through. And that's my Dad. And I... it's much harder when you see somebody you love being criticized than when... I did get angry about it..."

"When it's you you don't get that angry?"

"No not really. Not really."

"Really, you don't take it personally?"

"No, I don't."

"Because they are trying to destroy you, you know that."

"Well, that's too bad. And I think most Americans don't want to see the president destroyed. I think most Americans want this country to come together and work for the common good."

Now, that was 12 years ago. Do you think it holds now, most Americans don't want to see a president destroyed and they want to work together for the common good? Look how much we've changed in that time. You know, I like President Bush and he is a better man than I am. I could never have overlooked some of the stuff that he... you know and he sincerely felt that it was better for the country for him to just ignore the constant daily attacks. But they're times ten now on Trump.

Whatever George W. Bush went through, it's ten times worse on Donald Trump. So we can understand why he does some of the things that he does. However, for his sake, and the Republican Party's sake, and the country's sake, don't sweat the small stuff. Go for the big stuff.

Migrant children in detention is getting to be an enormous problem. Twelve thousand eight hundred right now in facilities run by the government. In May of 2017, just 18 months ago. Not even 18 months. Twenty four hundred.

It's gone from twenty four hundred to twelve thousand eight hundred kids and that's because there's a surge of families coming to the border. In August, it was up 50 percent from year to year. And the reason is that the people smuggling industry are telling the poor people in Mexico, in Honduras, in Nicaragua, in Guatemala, in El Salvador, if you take the kids, you get a better chance of getting in. So they're showing up. I mean, in August, almost 50,000 people were apprehended at our southern border.

50,000. And a good number of those are children. And Congress sits there and does nada. Nada. Nothing.

A poll on the kneel down. Most Americans believe that athletes have a right to protest. No surprise. However, this specific kneel down and the anthem protest, very interesting. Forty seven percent of Americans disapprove. 47 percent of Americans approve. Shows you where we are in the culture war. It's right down the middle. Men disapprove by a whopping 50-43, but women approve 51-43. Women are far more sympathetic. Ok, white voters disapprove 53-41. Black voters, 77 approve, 14 disapprove. Hispanic voters, tie, 48-48. Independent voters, 46 disapprove, 47 approve. Divided country, no doubt about it.

Mail. Message board. JoAnne.

"I really enjoyed Ken Starr's interview when you asked him if Mueller has a responsibility to let people know the status of the investigation. Starr's response was that Mueller could not be seen as influencing election by coming forward with information or words to that effect. Isn't the Mueller investigation influencing the election because he's not coming forward with any sort of an update?"

I say it is. I absolutely say it is. But that's a subjective opinion that you and I both have, JoAnne.

OK, message board, Suzanne.

"If President Trump declassifies the documents now and it blows up the investigation, what would be the best timing for that? Appears Judge Starr's interview...Mr. Mueller won't be giving any briefings."

I took that away too and I agree that Mr. Mueller probably won't. It will be interesting to see if that inspector general's report comes out. That would be interesting. Timing doesn't matter to me. Let's get the information out to the people. OK, let's get it out. If there is a corrupt investigation, we all need to know.

Message board, John.

"I also share your frustration about President Trump not focusing more on what Democrats stand for. But it is what it is."

Oh, don't save that...oh, it hurts, John. It is what it is. It's like at the end of the day, it's like a stake through me. No cliches.

"Mr. Trump has taken us an exciting rollercoaster ride for three years but some people are ready to jump off.".

 Look the Democratic Party is running on Barack Obama that what it is running, this November, we like what he did. You're telling me that Republicans should make an issue of that. I mean I don't care about either party myself, I care about the country.

Nicholas Herrera. Rialto, California.

"Bill O'Reilly, I'm a Mexican American whose family came to this country from San Luis, Mexico. They struggle however they went through the American legal process to get here. Fortunately I was born in America but my grandparents were immigrants that taught me being an American citizen is a blessing. I should never take it for granted. They were right. I love my country very much and I am privileged to live in the greatest country on earth. I value your opinions even though I may disagree at times but you are a great voice for the true patriot. Thank you sir."

Thank you Nicholas. What a nice letter and I'm so happy you're happy in this country. I'm so happy that you're prospering. Thank you again.

Jason Vitalis. Oseola, Wisconsin.

"I still hear conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, have you and Martin ødegaard ever considered writing a book on those events?".

Too close, too much much classified information. And of course we're never going to write on any conspiracy theories because we don't do that either. It's too close they let what the intelligence agencies found out, nobody knows, that's got to come out before you can write an authoritative book. That is why the Martin Luther King book hasn't been written yet, the real authoritative book.

Rick.

"Just finished listening to Culture Warrior. Are you going to write a sequel to examine secular progressives and traditional warriors 12 years later?"

No probably not, Rick. I'm so busy with my Killing book series but I'm glad you read Culture Warrior. Perhaps my perspicacious, my most perspicacious book, word of the day perspicacious, I got another one too. I predicted a lot of this would happen in Culture Warrior 12 years ago.

And on the book front there is the audio of Killing the SS. I read it! I haven't read the last few because I've been too busy but this one I had to read it because it's so dramatic. I just couldn't have somebody else read it. So we're going to put a little bit of this, a few minutes of it up on the website, next week. But if you want the audio preorder it because it's going to sell out. Unlike the hardback books where they can really move them quick, audio is going to sell out. You can get it on Barnes Noble, Amazon.com BillOReilly.com, preorder it, you'll get it first. Audio for Killing the SS.

September 25th Killing Patton out in paper. If you buy Killing Patton from BillOReilly.com we will send you Killing Jesus paperback both books twenty bucks. Excellent deal. 

Concierge Membership open for your inspection. Check it out. May like it, direct access to me.

Word of the day do not be a snollygoster when writing to BillOReilly.com. Remember if you sign up for Concierge Membership you get a 20 percent discount on everything. Premium Members get 10, you get 20 or something like that and two books. It's almost, you know the what you pay you get back. Simple as that.

Have a nice weekend. Check in with us please. I'll be writing a Message for the Day tomorrow and I'll be going in and out a website all weekend long. We'll see you soon.

 The American way of life is about hard work strength and guaranteed freedoms. We're not afraid to earn our way and we fight to protect what's ours but our way of life has been threatened by social handouts big bailouts and overreaching regulations. And it only stands to get worse if liberals when Congress this year. You know the importance of protecting yourself your home and your family. But you can't rely on big banks to safeguard your assets and financial future secure what you've earned with gold and silver from Orion metal exchange in the past 20 years the value of gold has skyrocketed while the US dollar has declined and investment with a rise in metals means you have tangible protected assets controlled by you not Wall Street traders who play games with your savings. With a rise in metals you get free ensure delivery for your gold and silver investment purchases. Call today at 8 6 6 4 8 4 9 2 2 3 and request a free investment guide and Market Report a gold out of the 2000 dollars and matching funds call today 8 6 6 4 8 4 9 2 2 3 8 6 6 4 8 4 9 2 2 3.