Alan Dershowitz: Civil Liberties Threatened With Kushner Probe

Article from NEWSMAX Saturday May 27, 2017

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday that reports that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner was under FBI scrutiny on Russia pointed to an inquiry that was “being done backwards” and “raises great concerns about civil liberties.”

“Usually, you can point to a statute and say, ‘We’re investigating crime under this statute,'” Dershowitz told Anderson Cooper on CNN before referencing special prosecutor Robert Mueller.

“What Mueller seems to be doing is saying: ‘We don’t like what happened. Maybe there was some collaboration. But I can’t figure out what statute was being violated.’

“When Hillary Clinton was being investigated, at least we knew what the statute was.”

The Washington Post and NBC News reported on Thursday that the FBI was investigating Kushner’s meetings last year with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and a banker from Moscow.

Jamie Gorelick, Kushner’s lawyer, said that her client would cooperate with the probe.

“Mr. Kushner previously volunteered with Congress what he knows about these meetings,” she said in a statement. “He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry.”

Dershowitz had some advice for Gorelick, whom he said was a former student.

“I would say, first to the investigators: ‘Before you talk to my client, I want to know what your authority is. What your jurisdiction is.'”

Laking that foundation, Dershowitz likened the Kushner inquiry to the words of Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

“I don’t like criminal investigations to start on hoping that once you have the target, maybe we’ll find the crime, maybe we’ll find the statute – and if we can’t find the statute, we’ll stretch the statute to fit the person.

“I don’t want to ever see that come to America.”

The President Just Made a Titanic Foreign Policy Shift. The Media Missed It.

Originally published at The Washington Post. Obtained from Gingrich Productions.

The President Owes the News Media Nothing: Part 1

This newspaper’s legendary former publisher, Philip Graham, famously described journalism as the business of writing the “first rough draft of history.” This week, as President Trump gave a historic speech in Saudi Arabia before the leaders of more than 50 Muslim-majority nations, journalism’s first draft missed the history almost entirely.

While the media focused on the ephemeral questions — whether the president would use campaign rhetoric in a diplomatic setting, or how the trip would affect the Obama legacy — they largely missed the real drama of the moment: a titanic shift in U.S. foreign policy occurring right before their eyes.

Trump stood before an unprecedented gathering of leaders to do something far more significant than utter a single phrase or undermine his predecessor’s record. He was there to rally the Muslim world, in his words, “to meet history’s great test” — defeating the forces of terrorism and extremism. He did so in a way that no American president ever had before. While extending a hand of friendship to Muslim nations, he also issued them a clear challenge: to take the lead in solving the crisis that has engulfed their region and spread across the planet. “Drive out the terrorists and extremists,” he urged them, or consign your peoples to futures of misery and squalor.

To find a comparably dramatic moment in the history of U.S. foreign policy, we have to look all the way back to 1982. That June, 35 years ago next month, President Ronald Reagan stood in the Royal Gallery at the Palace of Westminster in London and called on the West to rally in defense of freedom and against communist aggression.

In that one speech, Reagan predicted the fall of communism and reinvigorated the Western alliance. “We see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit,” Reagan said. “What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?”
Reagan declared his speech a turning point in history — and it was. On Sunday, Trump, too, declared that his challenge would be a turning point, one way or another. And he posed to that assembly in Riyadh an equally dramatic choice. It was, he said, “a choice between two futures” — the path of civilization, or the path of evil and death.

“America is prepared to stand with you” in the fight against terrorism, Trump pledged. “But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.”

Never before has an American president tried so clearly to unite the civilized world, including the nations of the Middle East and Africa, against the forces of terrorism. Never before has an American president issued so direct a challenge to those nations to do more in the fight. And never before has an American president so plainly put the ultimate responsibility for eradicating terrorism on the nations of the region. In doing so, Trump’s speech implicitly repudiated the approaches of his two immediate predecessors and promised instead what he characterized as a “principled realism,” based on a clear-eyed view of America’s interests, security and limits.

That this decisive shift in U.S. foreign policy occurred on a foreign trip within the first four months of the administration is all the more impressive. Reagan didn’t take his first international trip until well into his second year. And unlike President Barack Obama’s early speech to the Muslim world in 2009, Trump backed up his words with action.

The United States and Saudi Arabia signed a $110 billion arms deal, the largest in U.S. history, which will bolster the kingdom’s ability to contribute to counterterrorism operations across the region. This will reduce the burden on the U.S. military and send a clear message that this administration takes the threat of Iran seriously. The agreements also included a new commitment to crack down on terrorism financing in the Persian Gulf states, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Saudi investment in the United States.

Journalists and Washington bureaucrats, who are so deeply embedded in the establishment that they can’t see out of it, may see Trump’s call to action as a distracting sideshow from a status quo they can’t imagine changing. And yet this week, it already has. Foreign leaders and the American people alike can see in this trip the core of a new, reality-based foreign policy.

Your Friend,

Newt

P.S. I am very excited to announce that my new book, Understanding Trump will be released on June 13, 2017. Click here to pre-order>>

What a Tea Party Leader Thinks of Lois Lerner’s Latest Move in Court

From the “Daily Caller” – Rachel del Guidice / May 23, 2017

One tea party leader is still looking for answers from the IRS.

Lawyers for Lois Lerner, who resigned under fire as a division chief at the Internal Revenue Service, argue that more details of her reported targeting of tea party groups should not be revealed because her safety is in danger.

But Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to election integrity, said she wants to see such documentation released.

True the Vote was one of hundreds of conservative, nonprofit organizations whose applications for tax-exempt status were unfairly slowed or spiked by the IRS, and Engelbrecht said she intends to see the details come out.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

“My position on this is just ‘Tell the truth,’” Engelbrecht said in an email to The Daily Signal. “Tell it publicly, there’s been enough covering up, there’s been enough rumor and innuendo, there’s been enough passing the buck.”

Lerner and Holly Paz, another former IRS official involved in the scandal, recently filed papers in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, seeking to keep secret certain IRS practices they discussed in depositions taken in a lawsuit filed by tea party groups against the government.

Judge Michael R. Barrett said Thursday that information from Lerner and Paz may be kept confidential until he hears their case, The Washington Times reported.

Lerner and Paz said in the court papers that making public details about how IRS workers in Cincinnati and Washington, D.C., “handled applications for tax-exempt status from tea party groups” could endanger their lives, USA Today reported.

Engelbrecht’s organization, which filed for tax-exempt status in 2010, was asked hundreds of questions by the IRS that she said “had nothing to do with nonprofit status.”

After the IRS requested copies of speeches she had given and groups she had interacted with, Engelbrecht said in the interview, she had had enough.

“We finally sued them and are still in court with the IRS over viewpoint discrimination,” Engelbrecht said.

“The only way you can ever heal a problem is if you understand the root source.

But lawyers for Paz and Lerner said their testimony in out-of-court depositions should be kept private.

“This documentation, as the court will see, makes very personal references and contains graphic, profane, and disturbing language that would lead to unnecessary intrusion and embarrassment if made public,” the lawyers said in a court brief.

The lawyers added that “public dissemination of their deposition testimony would put their lives in serious jeopardy.”

“That is a stunning admission, that what they did is so egregiously wrong and so criminal that people might be very angry with them over it,” John Eastman, professor of law at Chapman University, told The Daily Signal in an interview. “That’s exactly why it’s important that this see that light of day.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said the former IRS officials are making “a ridiculous claim” in the case, United States of America v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots et al.

“The court should summarily dismiss this claim and order their immediate appearance,” von Spakovsky said of Lerner and Paz in an email to The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the IRS, but did not receive a response.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization, said he isn’t convinced that disclosure of the specific actions by IRS employees would be life threatening.

“It’s hard to know what the actual issues are without being able to review the briefs, so I think that is an important caveat,” Fitton told The Daily Signal in an interview, adding:

The principle is to err on the side of public disclosure, and certainly a portion of the transcripts that were under official duties and responsibilities, in my view, would be in the public interest to have available.

Any evidence filed should be made public, with sensitive personal information removed, Fitton said:

Well, the key is, this is a public court proceeding and these are senior government officials, so without discounting the concerns about personal safety I think any of those concerns can be mitigated to a sufficient extent so as to allow dissemination of material about what they were up to at the IRS.

The situation could play out several ways, Eastman said.

“There’s a motion for a protective order pending, and they’re arguing that the potential harm to Lois Lerner and Holly Paz exceeds anything we would learn in the discovery [of the IRS actions in question],” the law professor said.

Eastman said the threshold for issuing a protective order is extremely high, but that a judge may decide, after depositions are taken, to make public only some parts.

Lerner and Paz’s circumstances, von Spakovsky said, are similar to many situations public figures face and shouldn’t be treated differently.

“All current and former public officials in Washington get nasty emails and offensive letters and social media tweets—including me,” Spakovsky said, adding:

If that were the criteria for excusing someone from testifying about their misbehavior while in office, then they would have the ready-made equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card—or in this case, getting out of testifying as they are legally obligated to do.

Surrender or Fight

Originally published at Fox News. Copied from Gingrich Productions.

Republicans, in particular the Trump administration, are approaching a historic decision that will shape America for generations to come.

The endless hostility of the Left, exemplified by violent fascists on college campuses, thugs in the streets, determined disrupters at town hall meetings, and the dishonest elite media are all part of their efforts to defeat the reforms and changes that President Trump was elected to implement.

The constant, anonymous leaks from disgruntled federal bureaucrats aim to provide ammunition for the propaganda news media to press the attack.

The Left’s dance of destruction is stunningly choreographed.

I have been overseas for the last three days, and it has been sickening to see so many foreigners terrified because they unknowingly believe the news media’s false reports and vicious attacks. The only version of President Trump they know is the one portrayed in the 24-hour cesspool of CNN and the daily acrimony of the New York Times. Sadly, our own nation’s news media is doing more to undermine America’s image than Al Jazeera or Pravda combined.

As the media continues to serve as a megaphone for the nameless federal employees who have axes to grind, remember that 95 percent of 2016 campaign donations from federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. At the State Department, 99 percent of employees who gave supported Clinton, and that figure is 97 percent at the Department of Justice.

Congressional Republicans are rapidly approaching a crossroads. Some have already surrendered by giving up on town hall meetings. Others have accepted the news media’s false narrative as the truth. Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.

The Trump White House faces an even greater challenge. Trying to reason with, placate, or even respond to the Washington news media is a losing game. Each day, the opposition media is fiercely committed to either magnifying a supposed problem or inventing a new one.

We are today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked the battlefield and defined the terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, sometimes violent hostility from the Left with confusion, uncertainty, and appeasement, we are guaranteed to lose the struggle to drain the swamp and reform Washington.

Further, surrendering will destroy America as we know it. Far from making America great again, we will have yielded our country to left-wing thugs, liars, and intimidators.

Those of us who truly want to make America great again have one choice: Fight. Our situation is similar to President Lincoln’s in 1861. He had to make the choice between fighting until he won or giving up on the idea of the United States. Once again, our country is at stake.

Senate Republicans are well-positioned because there are 10 Democratic senators up for re-election in states President Trump won last November. These Democrats should be made to carry the burden of the collapsing Obamacare system and the pain it is causing in their states. They should be made to own every strand of expensive red tape they vote to keep and every Homeland Security measure they oppose. They should be held accountable for every crime in their states committed by criminal aliens protected by sanctuary city laws.

If Senate Republicans implement an all-out campaign, they could pick up all 10 seats and have the largest GOP majority since the election of 1868.

House Republicans have a more difficult challenge. Political polarization, compounded by a number of incumbents retiring, make it harder for them to expand their majority. But here are some numbers for perspective:

12 congressional districts carried by President Trump are currently represented by Democrats.
These Democrats won by an average of six percent, or just 19,000 votes.
Four won by less than two points.

On the other hand:

23 Republicans are in districts won by Secretary Clinton.
They won their races by an average of 12 percent, or 37,000 votes.
Only one Republican in a Clinton-won district won by less than 2 points.

Defeating the Left’s attacks will require House Republicans to engage in significantly more training and planning than they are used to. Most House Republicans have spent their congressional careers in a safe majority. Very few lived through the disaster of 2006, and only a handful of current members were in the so-called permanent minority before 1994.

This House GOP has never faced an all-out political war like this. House Republicans must dramatically reorganize their thinking and restructure their activities – or resign themselves to accepting Speaker Pelosi and the impeachment effort of 2019 (which will be the Democrats’ first priority, should they gain control of the House).

House Republicans must change now. Fighting to retain a majority is far easier than fighting to reclaim it. Remember, before the Contract with America, House Republicans had been in the minority for 40 years.

The Trump White House, however, faces the biggest decisions. Members of the Trump team have used harsh words but timid tactics when dealing with the unending, dishonest, and vicious assaults by the left-wing media.

The President seems to understand how serious and how bad the situation is. He has said:

“As you know I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth.” January 21, 2017

“But there are some terrible, dishonest people, and they do a tremendous disservice to our country and to our people. A tremendous disservice. They are very dishonest people, and they shouldn’t use sources. They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like you’ve never seen before.” February 24, 2017

“The Washington media is part of the problem. Their priorities are not my priorities, and they’re not your priorities.” April 29, 2017

When your opponents are “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “do a tremendous disservice service to the country,” and are “part of the problem,” then you need a strategy and system that is built around that analysis.

The next few months will see one of the greatest decisions in American history. Do we fight to make America great again, or do we surrender to those who claim the elitist power to dictate to the rest of us?

There is no middle ground.

Your Friend,
Newt

P.S. I am very excited to announce that my new book, Understanding Trump will be released on June 13, 2017. Click here to pre-order now>> http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2017/05/order-understanding-trump/

Alan Dershowitz on Mueller: ‘Not Such a Good Thing’ for American Public

By Todd Beamon (Newsmax) | Wednesday, 17 May 2017 09:49 PM

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s appointment Wednesday as special counsel to the Russia investigation is “another self-inflicted wound” by the Trump administration and is “not such a good thing” for the American public, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said.

He referenced news reports that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was angered at being blamed for James Comey’s firing as FBI director last week by President Donald Trump.

“When the president blamed Rod Rosenstein for the decision to fire Comey, Rod Rosenstein made himself unfireable,” he told Anderson Cooper on CNN. “He became the most powerful person, if not in Washington in the Justice Department.”

Rosenstein appointed Mueller, 72, who headed the FBI during 9/11, to oversee the agency’s investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Despite Mueller’s stellar reputation in intelligence circles, Dershowitz described the appointment as “a mixed blessing.

“For the American public, it’s not such a good thing,” he explained. “We probably won’t learn anything from this investigation.

“It’s going to be in secret. We will never hear from a witness.

“At the end, we will either hear either two words – ‘no indictment’ – or we will hear ‘an indictment.'”

He called for an independent commission – “to the extent that we want to know what really went on” – because it “would have been much better for the American public.

“President Trump probably could have avoided a special prosecutor if he had pressed for an independent investigatory commission earlier.”

Dershowitz also cited another limitation involving Mueller’s investigation.

“It’s very likely no crimes occurred,” he told Cooper. “If there was contact between the Russians and the administration, it might be a terrible, terrible thing – but it wouldn’t be a crime.

“So, Mueller wouldn’t have jurisdiction to look into that. He can’t generally look into things that might be politically bad or morally bad.

“He is focused,” Dershowitz emphasized before referring to the main character of “Moby Dick,” the 1851 classic by Herman Melville. “He is Ahab, looking at that white whale.

“He either gets the whale or he doesn’t get the whale,” the retired professor said. “He doesn’t look at the entire seascape.”

Jack Welch Urges Trump To Go To War Against The Deep State

by John Carney (Breitbart) 17 May 2017

Jack Welch, the former chief executive of General Electric, thinks Donald Trump is not being ruthless enough with the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

“I think he was an entrepreneur who ran his own shop and he never ran a bureaucracy,” Welch said on CNBC’s Squawk Box. “It was a family business, which he ran beautifully. He was successful. But you can’t keep doing that.”

Welch advised the president to get more aggressive with the Deep State government bureaucrats whose leaks have triggered much of the chaos now engulfing the White House.

“If you run a bureaucracy, they’re in the weeds, they’re behind the desk, they’re whispering around the water-cooler. You’ve got to nail them and get them the hell out of there,” Welch said.

Welch said he’s a supporter of the president’s agenda but a critic of his management skills. The handling of James Comey, Welch said, was a rookie mistake. Given Trump’s earlier praise of the former FBI director, calling Comey incompetent was a mistake. Instead, the president should have praised Comey even as he fired him,

“I think without question we have a guy that on the right agenda with crappy management practices,” Welch said.

If he had to give a grade to Trump’s management skills, Welsch said he’d give Trump a “D minus.”

“And I’m an easy grader,” Welch said.

Welch said he would Trump straight As on boosting morale of business owners, on picking members of his cabinet and on his Supreme Court pick.

Welch also warned that an impeachment of President Donald Trump would trigger a huge market sell-off.

“An impeachment proceeding would blow the market away,” Welch said.

“US”

“US” by Paul Genova

(Mr. Paul Genova has been President and Chief Operating Officer of Wireless Telecom Group Inc. since June 30, 2016.)

I haven’t said too much about this election since the start….but this is how I feel….

I’m noticing that a lot of people aren’t graciously accepting the fact that their candidate lost.
In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those who voted for Trump.
Some are apparently “triggered” because they are posting how “sick” you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask? Well here is how it happened!

You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.

You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.

You created “us” when you attacked our Christian beliefs.

You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.

You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.

You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.

You created “us” when you attacked our flag

You created “us” when you took God out of our schools.

You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.

You created “us” when you began to emasculate men.

You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.

You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.

You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.

You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.

You created “us” the silent majority

You created “us” when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.

You created “us” when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.

You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.

You created “us” when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn’t remove your hat during our National Anthem.

You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.

And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of “us”

“YOU” created “US”.

The Tax System Explained

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100… If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

– The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
– The fifth would pay $1.
– The sixth would pay $3.
– The seventh would pay $7.
– The eighth would pay $12.
– The ninth would pay $18.
– The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3… (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7… (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12… (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18… (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59… (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he received ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bar-stool-economics-david-r-kamerschen-phd-jeff-dick

Bill O’Reilly: My Firing Was ‘a Hit’ by the Far Left

Bill O’Reilly broke his silence Friday in his first interview since being fired by Fox News, saying his dismissal was “a hit” caused by the “destroying voices” of the “far left.”

“This was a hit and in the weeks to come we’re going to be able to explain some of it,” O’Reilly told “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”

Last month, Fox News parted ways with O’Reilly after a series of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior claims leveled against him in recent years. The New York Times had reported that five women received large payments in exchange for not pursuing litigation or speaking about the accusations.

O’Reilly said Fox was pressured by left-wing activists who came in and threatened sponsors unless they stopped running commercials on the highly-rated “O’Reilly Factor.”

He said he and his legal team would soon be naming names of those they believe are behind a plot to get him fired. But he named liberal billionaire businessman George Soros as one of the chief funders against conservative opinion.

“There’s going to be an exposition soon but I can’t tell you when … I was target No. 1, it’s sad for me, it’s sad for my family … From now on, when I ‘m attacked I’m going to take action, mostly legal action,” he said.

O’Reilly said he was returning to the United States from a trip to Rome and the Vatican when he learned he had been dismissed by the Fox News Channel.

“My attorneys told me and we were all shocked … I had 20 good years at FNC. We were caught by surprise, but it’s [Fox’s] prerogative,” he told Beck.

“People know that the left-wing media hates Fox and hates me … but they don’t know the extent of it… We’re accumulating information and someday it will all be clear.”

O’Reilly also attacked the press, saying some media outlets are as “evil as it gets.” He chastized Beck for believing news reports that he had received a $25 million kiss-off from Fox.

“In American journalism right now, very few are seeking the truth. What they do … is come up with this scenario and try to reinforce that,” he said.

Asked about this week’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, O’Reilly said there were several reasons President Donald Trump had acted.

“Trump does not trust James Comey … He doesn’t like the fact that Comey is unpredictable [and] … that Comey would not aggressively investigate the leaks that have plagued the Trump administration,” O’Reilly said.

But he also criticized the White House for being too “undisciplined” in its day-to-day management.

“The Trump administration always makes mistakes by being undisciplined … The messaging is always the problem … [White House Press Secretary Sean] Spicer’s just weak,” O’Reilly said.

He said the “straight press, the journalists, the hard news reporters, they now are devoting most of their time to destroying Donald Trump.”

“They hate him, by extension anybody who gives Trump a fair play, anybody, is going to be attacked as well … There’s this monolithic and very powerful industry that’s developed to get Trump out of office,” O’Reilly said.

“On the left you get, ‘We’re going to take him out.’ … That’s what the New York Times wants to do … This dishonesty in the media is harming this country.”