Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Thanks and -- -- Bill O'Reilly in a week days of Bernie segment tonight front page New York Times today.
An article on leaked to Guantanamo Bay top secret documents put out by WikiLeaks again.
However the times denies that website was its source op Ed in the Wall Street Journal says USA should go after the WikiLeaks people charging them with espionage against this country.
Dries -- Miami the purveyor Bernard Goldberg dot com mr.
Goldberg it's okay mom.
This is an ongoing situation.
The press some of the press is seizing upon it if I got leaked to WikiLeaks documents I wouldn't put money on until everybody flat -- I wouldn't do it.
-- specially if -- put the USA and in any kind of a dangerous situation in which the Guantanamo Bay thing can whip up people.
Easily around the world what say you.
I think we disagree.
It's certainly I'm against stated that puts innocent lives in jeopardy.
Or jeopardizes an ongoing operation to capture terrorists and I'm against it.
But I think you have to distinguish between the person who actually downloaded an -- stole the documents that person is clearly guilty of some crime.
Was not in collusion with that person who downloaded the document.
WikiLeaks didn't give them software to do it or didn't tell -- how to do it or anything like that.
Then WikiLeaks pretty much.
Is a news organization granted it's anti American anti war news organization.
But they got the information.
From whoever whoever stole the documents and then made a decision.
As to whether or not to publish.
I think they have a right to do that I don't think they should be prosecuted can I give you -- very quick analogy to to back up my point you're.
Let's say let's say somebody broke into the archives at Columbia University.
And stole Barack Obama's college records.
You Bill O'Reilly knew nothing about you didn't tell him how to do it you can -- among the -- was going to be on a coffee break.
You -- as innocent as the driven snow and the person.
Who who who stole the documents brings them to you when you confirm that legitimate documents and they have.
Hypothetically of course incredible.
Information in them.
You have a right and I would argue an obligation to publish those -- -- OK but I would probably -- arguments.
All right unless.
Unless they put somebody endanger our troops -- this that the other thing an -- problem and I know what you're saying.
But now you have -- it's almost like you do Rico situation you know with -- organized crime they charge people with a -- ongoing organized crime thing.
You said it yourself this is an anti American organization that's looking searching -- encouraging people.
Come to them -- stolen per loin top secret documents I think you can get them on to that -- thing and I think you could probably issue now.
Is is Sweden -- acts and I don't we hear I don't know whether they will not -- you make a strong case that these people are practicing espionage against this country.
Here's -- here's -- I disagree.
The Vietnam War was an immensely.
Unpopular war immensely unpopular.
Daniel Ellsberg who was working for the Rand Corp.
had confidential documents the Pentagon papers.
Daniel -- were released them.
To a reporter Neil Sheehan of the New York Times Daniel Ellsberg.
May have committed a crime he would he would give it -- -- our president and that he did note.
No no no he was put on trial but the government had committed so many crimes against him by by wiretapping him and and breaking into his office his psychiatrist office.
That the judge threw the case out -- the point is Daniel Ellsberg arguably.
Violated the law but the New York Times did and they looked at the documents and they in my view rightly said you know what.
No I'm not talking about -- -- at times -- I mean I think that that that they really go up to the line but I'm not talking about them right now and they denied by the way that this.
There's a source but I'm -- -- -- you can get an indictment against WikiLeaks for espionage highlights.
I don't think so I'm talking about the New York Times.
The accuser in the duke rape case herself around has committed a bunch of crimes allegedly.
And while the New York Times ran wild with her accusations against the three Duke Lacrosse players.
Five or six years ago and trumpeted those all over the place they have downplayed their coverage about the crimes this woman has allegedly committee correct.
Right -- absolutely.
The the entire liberal establishment.
And and ran roughshod over these three kids the -- academic community did the civil rights establishment in that in the broad -- -- -- area did and of course.
The the so called mainstream media -- And had no offender this was one of the most egregious examples of despicable journalism and in memory.
And and -- was no worst offender than the New York Times.
Who this paper -- columns and stories pretty much convict in these people without and this is very important.
Even though there was not literally a shred of evidence.
Bad they committed any crime was a perfect liberal storm.
They were they the accuser was a poor black woman the kids were white they were -- and they were.
Supposedly privilege now we find out the woman sitting in prison for allegedly stabbing her boyfriend to death.
And the New York Times runs -- tiny tiny story.
Two paragraphs from a wire service on page B fourteen of the newspaper they could have used that occasion bill.
What what is the liberal establishment learn from this.
This I'll use the term lynching what did they learn.
What did the civil rights establishment learn what did the professors learn what did the press learned what of these kids doing today instead.
You know what it was hey -- wash our hands of this two paragraphs.
That's six we -- I'll talk about it anymore right.
Yeah and it's despicable are -- thanks as always.
Filter by section