00 p.m. tonight senator rand paul. o'reilly factor is on, tonight? >> look see. >> very interesting. >> put it to a poll. >> d-day for charles krauthammer. he supported the trade for bowe bergdahl. i said releasing five taliban commanders was a mistake. what do you say? tonight we will have the results of our poll and charles and i will analyze. >> we borrow a million dollars a minute. this vast accumulation of debt threatens not just our economy but our security. >> rand paul wants to be president of the united states. but many in his own party say he is too extreme. john stossel will weigh in. also ahead two sensational trials wrap up.

the boston marathon bomber and former new england patriots star aaron hernandez accused of murder. is it legal will render the verdicts. caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. ♪ ♪ hi i'm bill o'reilly. more embarrassment for the obama administration over bowe bergdahl that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. investigative service ncis had filed a report on sergeant bergdahl's disappearance in afghanistan. almost six years ago 2009. that report stated that bergdahl collaborated with some afghans to desert his unit and possibly to aid the enemy. surely, that ncis report was known by president obama

before he approved the release of five top taliban terrorists from guantanamo bay. but even worse were the public statements made tell the of bergdahl's release. >> sergeant bergdahl has missed birthdays and holidays, and the simple moments with family and friends which all of us take for granted. but while bowe was gone he was never forgotten. >> sergeant bergdahl put on the uniform of the united states voluntarily. that takes honor and it is a mark of distinction. >> he is going to be safely reunited with his family. he served the united states with honor and distinction. >> talking points is appalled that a man who may have collaborated with the enemy in afghanistan was erroneously defined by the white house. that's deception. because the investigation indicated criminal activity and none of that was presented to we the people.

none of it quite the opposite. we were told sergeant bergdahl was and is a man of honor, but now the military has charged him with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy which could lead to life in prison for the sergeant. this entire bergdahl ruess is part of the reason people mistrust obama. if we are going to be mislead to that degree on bergdahl? what about iran? what about the war on terror? what about the economy? benghazi was bad enough. the white house describing the attack as inspired by an anti-muslim video, but at least that was issued shortly after the fog of the battle. bergdahl's situation was known for years yet, the deception was still perpetrated. awful and unacceptable.

and that's the memo. now for the top story tonight. last week charles krauthammer and i disagreed on the trade for bergdahl. charles supports it. >> there are people who believe that the deal was justified. i am one of them and i said so at the time. justified in the sense that you want to bring everyone back. >> let the folks decide. we'll see. >> have a poll. put it to a poll. see which way it goes. >> all right. well be careful what you wish for. here are the results of our bill o'reilly.com poll which asked in hindsight would have you traded five captured taliban commanders for bowe bergdahl? about 50,000 of you voted. big number. 98% say no. 2% say they support the trade. joining us now from washington is the world famous charles krauthammer. i'm not gloating, no gloating zone. and you say? >> i demand a recount. [ laughter ] >> it won't take long.

only six people that agree with you. >> some irregularities in some of the texas precincts. number go. and how do i know you didn't have illegal aliens in the vote? is the fact that as much as i love the american people, they sometimes get it wrong. they elected barack obama, after all. not once but twice. here is the last point. i made a two-sided a two-part proposition. number one no soldier left behind. seconds part of the proposition was: no trader, no deserter left unpunished. you and i had a real disagreement over number two. you said of bergdahl that if he is found guilty, you would give him a pass. he suffered enough. how about doing a poll on that bill? >> well, i didn't say i would give him a pass. let's be accurate. i said there should be mercy involved and here is why. >> you said you would let

him off. >> no, i mercy should be shown. i wouldn't let him off. >> he suffered enough. you wouldn't put him in jail. >> the ncis poll actually backs me up on this. part of the poll that we reported last night says that bergdahl, all right wanted to go iewz beck stan you you see buck stan iewz uzbekistan. i want all his crimes to be exposed. i believe the man is emotionally unfit i do believe that i believer the ncis investigation points to it. >> you want to prejudge it. you said in advance last week. you said i would not let him rot in prison. after all, he suffered enough. why don't you let the trial proceed. >> that's what we're going to do. >> if it turns out that is he a loany to ans who wanted

to sign up with the mafia, i would give him, if he turns out to be mentally ill, i would do what i did in the hinckley case. i believe in acquitting him on the grounds of insanity. i believe in the insanity defense. >> that's all i'm saying. let's get to the more important issue. deception on the part of the white house. i mean, i'm just appalled. i'm appalled. because we didn't know about this ncis report until yesterday surely president obama knows about it he does this big dog and pony show and sends this guy out to tell how honorable he was. loon or not. clearly says the guy was collaborating with the enemy to do all kinds of things. how do you square that? >> you're surprised after six years of this administration is deceptive? >> i'm not surprised. i'm appalled.

>> i mean, this is nothing new. and we knew it at the time. >> this pumps it up to a new level. >> no. the problem was he appeared to be a deserter and a trader from the beginning. the administration knew that the president actually thought he could sell this. >> how. >> as some kind of great victory. >> i have no idea. but then i have no idea how he believes in his own iran agreement. there are a lot of things i cannot explain. >> do you think he understands -- this is so clear cut. i mean, this is way more clear than benghazi because i said that was quick after. this is five years of calculated deception. even today we have ed henry coming up behind you asked a question. wait until you hear the answer. all right. this is calculated deception. how could president obama think any american is going to trust him other than the kool-aid drinkers? how key he think he is going to have any credibility? >> bill, i hate to say this,

but i can't understand why you are so exercised. you have not heard of jonathan gruber? have you not heard of obama saying 22 times if you like your plan you can keep your plan? when everyone in the administration knew that was not true. as you said with the benghazi thing. they knew what the story was within 48 hours. and susan rice went on tv five days later. that wasn't a 48 hour deal. she knew it wasn't true. so what do you. >> this is five years of deception though. i'm trying to del that you this bumps it into an area where you can't defend it anymore. it's just outright rank deception insulting. insulting. every american, charles. that's what's happened this week. last word. >> bill, i don't change my position. this doesn't change anything. i bring every soldier back and i put every traitor on trial and i let the verdict go ahead.

those are my principles. the first is to support the morale of the troops and the second is to support the discipline of the troops. those are the principles at stake. >> charles krauthammer, everybody very good debate. ed henry on how the white house is dealing with the latest bergdahl embarrassment. and then later rand paul announcing he wants to be president. is extreme? factor is coming right back.

white house insider segment. bergdahl case, faced with our reporting last night as outlined in today's talking points memo. ed henry asked josh earnst to react. >> bowe bergdahl. there is some new information suggesting that he showed an intent to travel to iewz uzbekistan did multiple searches on his computer about crime. made contact with a local afghan to try to get off his

military base sooner. are you concerned about these allegations? you have heard about them? does it change your mind at all about the idea that he served with honor and distinction? >> ed, what i'm very reluctant to weigh in on this because there are sensitive issues related to the chain of command and the military code of justice. >> ace correspondent ed henry joins us now from d.c. so it's the usual, you know, he doesn't have to weigh in on the specifics of the case. you asked him the question. does that change your mind about him being an honorable man? and he won't answer it because maybe i'm wrong here, maybe i overstated it in the talking points memo. i'm insulted by. this i am insulted as an american, not just as a commentator. how much deception are we going to have to put up with here. >> what's shocking here is that it is reasonable for josh earnst, you know, on one hand to say it's an ongoing investigation. we don't want to get ahead of the facts. but, on the other hand that doesn't hold water because as you know, susan rice did

not wait for the facts. the president's national security advisor months ago went out and made the case wrongly that sergeant bergdahl served with honor and discuss continuation. it's reasonable for the president to want to bring in any american soldier home. not leave him or her behind on the battlefield. that is true. repeatedly said and that should be noted. top aides go out and falsely claim he served with honor and distinction when either a, they did not know all the facts and now the facts are in and it looks like certainly he did not serve with honor and distinction. or b, they knew he didn't serve with honor and distinction and said it anyway. that's what's shocking. >> the ncis report came out in 2009. and you are telling me that negotiate a taliban deal and all the intel isn't on the president's desk? it's impossible. >> that's the other part of this that you put your finger on which is interesting. the president is right that we shouldn't leave an american soldier behind on

the battlefield. but at what cost is that swap made? the fact that this was five taliban commanders basically that were swapped was something that not just republicans said was a bad idea hillary clinton, leon panetta various members of the cabinet in the first term had warned the president that this was not a good idea. ended up doing it anyway. >> more importantly than that, 98% of the 50,000 people voted in our poll say it was a bad deal. okay? so who is the president representing here? who? who? you know but the deception really rang kels me. i gave the president of the benefit of the doubt. now, critical pass has been reached. and this bergdahl thing, it's not the iranian nuke negotiation, but it's so clear and everybody should see it. ed henry, everybody. directly ahead. another surge of illegal alien children crossing the southern border. feds seem powerless to stop the chaos once again. also, is it legal on two major trials, boston

marathon bomber and next new england patriots star aaron hernandez charged with murder. up ahead.

factor follow up segment tonight, according to the "washington times," a second wave of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children has began surging the southern brld. so far this fiscal year nearly 16,000 children have been taken into custody by u.s. authorities down there. that's down from 29,000 at the same point last year but still a big humanitarian problem. in addition, the state department and homeland security are now flying kids to the u.s.a. from foreign countries to reunite them with their parents. that program is very controversial because some of those parents, perhaps most, are in the country illegally themselves hoping to take advantage of president obama's recent

executive order and, of course, the taxpayers footing the bill for the flights. with us now here in new york city monica crowley in d.c. kirsten powers. in the past you said you would let all the kids. in is that still your position? >> that's not what i said. what i said is that the kids should get -- what they are required under law which is they should be given a deportation hearing and then the judge would decide. >> but i believe -- i mean i think you are wrong on this. i think you said that you would allow them all in. you wouldn't stop them at the border and turn them back. >> anyone -- anybody -- yeah, i personally feel like any child that can make it to this country i would let them in. >> so that's the record. >> under the law. i just want to clarify though on what you were saying about what's been reported is this is a -- i spoke to an immigration expert earlier about this and this program applies only -- it's country people who are going to in country screenings and another country by the united states and they have been determined to be refugees. >> refugees?

>> and then they can fly to the united states. >> then they can? >> they estimate it's maybe 500 to 1,000 people. >> and you have full trust? >> and furthermore they don't -- they don't pay for -- they have to actually reimburse for the flight. >> re reimburse by whom? >> what do you mean? >> you say they have to be reimbursed by whom who reimburses? >> the parents in the u.s.a. pay for their kids' flight to the u.s.a. >> yeah. >> that's what i'm hearing the taxpayer has the full burden. >> the taxpayer pays for the flight to pay them up but they have to reimburse for the flight. >> when does that reimbursement have to come? is that any time soon? decades? >> i personally don't care if it's reimbursed these children have been granted asylum in the united states and it would be great to get them out of dangerous situations. i know you love the children, bill. don't you want to bring the kids out of the dangers? this program would apply to 500 to 1,000 people probably. >> no. >> in the last two years

100,000 children who have now gained entry to the u.s.a. they are not going back. not going to be deported. 70% don't show up for their hearings and they are here. >> there is a reason for that. >> you would not stop any of them so that surge is going to continue. >> there is a reason. >> let's get to miss monica go. >> if there are two realities here that the left is disregarding as it pursuing ago bigger political agenda here. the first is that the united states is a wealthy country but we don't have the rear sources to save the world. the second part of this our immigration laws the purpose of them is not to be compassionate or uncompassionate to the people coming into the country can tri illegally. the purpose of our immigration laws is to serve our national interest and it does not serve our national interest to have this continuing swarm of illegal aliens you have no idea. >> swarm? >> look, you have got. >> 100,000 people is a swarm. is there is a lot of kids. >> you have no idea who they are, where they are, where they're going. no foreigner has an inherent right to come to the united states without going through the legal channels to get

here. >> can i say something here? >> you guys last year this time last year were screaming like armageddon was coming because the swarm of children was coming in to our country and they're all gang banger and all had diseases. >> i didn't say that. >> i'm amazed we are even alive. this is the argument that was being made. >> that wasn't made here. there wasn't any argument made here other than a fiscal argument and responsibility to protect the border argument. >> when did any of that happen though? >> you are talking about a phantom thing that wasn't present on this program. >> no one on your show ever made that argument? that is absolutely false. >> i don't remember anybody saying that there were gang bangers coming in here. that wasn't the thrust of our reportage last year. it wasn't. >> but the truth is, you did have criminals coming over. did you have drug cartels. >> that's not the main issue, the main issue is there is no immigration policy in america anymore. >> that's correct. >> there isn't. it's gone. it's vanished. executive order is basically legalize 5 million aliens

here under various circumstances. that wasn't voted on by the congress. it was a pin. okay? >> let's understand why. >> there isn't any enforce wanted to stop the children do from coming. in they swarm across the border in tremendous numbers. once they are here, they get all the welfare payments and they are coming here at taxpayer expense from central america you say they are going to get reimbursed but nobody believes it but you. >> the person who told me that is one of these left wing groups called the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. >> reimburse those flights. you really have to look up with the tiananmen. >> then that's -- then you need to take that up with the catholic church because that's, you know. >> look, the catholic church. >> i don't care. listen, i don't care if they are reimbursed it's 500 to 1,000 kids. >> open border proponent let them all in and we'll sort it all out later. >> are you opposed to any

humanitarian assistance, bill? >> it's ridiculous. that's such a ridiculous statement. what i want. >> what's ridiculous? >> what i want is an immigration policy, all right? >> they are not immigrants. they are seeking asylum. >> you can't cross the border unless you have legal papers. call me crazy. >> they're not immigrants. >> oh, they are not immigrants, i know. let them all in. >> seeking asylum. >> last word. >> the humanitarian argument is being used as a pro-text for a large political agenda here. flooding the zone, millions of illegal immigrants to come into the country. >> to vote democrat? >> that's your. >> it's in order to get a permanent democrat voting majority. that's it. period. >> okay. i have got to go. very lively. thank you ladies. and kirsten powers has a new book out may 4th. entitled the silencing. how the left is killing free speech. plenty more ahead as the factor moves along this

evening. bernie goldberg says the national media is afraid. cover story is about women, honestly. very provocative. he will be here. rand paul is running for president. is he too radical. we hope you stay tuned for those reports.

personal story segment tonight, senator rand paul from kentucky has announced he will run for president. some from his own party

strongly oppose the senator. there is a new ad from a republican group. >> the senate is considering tough new sanctions on iran. president obama says he will veto them. and rand paul is standing with him. rand paul supports obama's negotiations with iran. and he doesn't understand the threat. >> you know, it's ridiculous to think that there they are a threat to our national security. >> rand paul is wrong. and dangerous. tell him to stop siding with obama because even one iranian bomb would be a disaster. >> all right. the paul campaign says they are not siding with the president. us now to react fox business anchor john stossel, you can see this program fbn friday evenings at 9:00. rand paul too extreme? >> no, he just is not as eager to go to war as hillary and the republican, the other republican candidate. >> okay. do you believe that he would feet the terrorists overseas? we know he is opposed to the drone program. he doesn't like that. he doesn't want to put

american troops in will middle east to fight the terrorist. i don't even think he supports the bombing of isis but i'm not sure. >> he says he does. >> does he say he does? all right. so he is he supports the sanctions. they have take a quote from 8 years ago. >> he does supports the sanctions. the perception is he is very soft on confronting evil abroad. >> he doesn't want to bomb everybody. i like it that he quotes john quincy adams. america does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. >> okay. but we didn't have planes back when john quincy was president. >> fair enough. >> i mean. if you are going to go back-it was blunder buses that we were talking about. >> libya and syria and iraq worked out? >> you are okay with his foreign policy? you are all right with it? >> yeah. >> because it scares a lot of people. that's his big deficit. >> the others ones scare me. >> i know stossel but everybody scares you. he would legalize narcotics

rand paul, would all right. >> i'm not so sure. he says the federal government shunting locking up all these people. >> okay. so that would be -- you would have to do-a major haul in drug laws and i think he would. how that filters down to the states would be more importition of narcotics. they have to get here some way. he doesn't like the mandatory sentencing for crimes. >> okay. you like? >> i do. i think that heinous people, evil people should be punished. i worse than being punished now. >> you are comfort thable america locks up more people than china and russia more than any other country? >> i'm not comfortable with it. but i think that if they would do it in a methodical way as i have proposed with different tiers of crimes, in places that are far away that that would bring crime down. because crime has been falling as you know with all the mandatory sentencing, crime has come way, way down. >> and in states that got rid of their mandatory

sentencing crime also. why did it come down? the first place? >> there is a million reasons. >> took the bad guys off the street. >> but the drug war is nuts. >> rand paul is now polling at 10% among the republicans. >> he is fourth. >> he is fourth. it's walker 15. bush 12. carson 1 1. cruise cruz 10. huckabee 10. paul here 9. we will give him the extra point at 10. >> this is the fox poll. the most accurate poll has him at 10%. >> which is that? >> where people bet. >> oh, vegas poll? >> no, that's been banned in vegas. you have to go overseas. >> what poll are you citing. >> bets. >> from where? >> from all over the world. >> who puts this together? >> you don't know? >> it's a company called bet fair in london. >> bet fair. >> and rand paul would legalize betting. that's why bet fair gives him the extra point. they want him in there. >> you want to get that he doesn't get the nomination? >> no. >> oh, john stossel,

everybody. >> not putting his money where bet fair is okay. good to see you as always, stossel. thank you. don't be frightened of me. when we come right back. boston marathon bomber trial and young teenagers charged with child important in illinois. wait until you hear this. legal is next.

♪ ♪ ♪ for the 51 million of us who may need a different kind of underwear, this is new depend silhouette active fit. it's slim and smooth so wearing it is no big deal. get a free sample of depend at underwareness.com

thanks for staying with us, i'm bill o'reilly. in the is it legal segment tonight, very tense stories. kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl. boston mayor chop bomber, even his own defense lawyer says he is guilty. he did it. >> all right. so he is guilty. >> he is guilty. >> so now you have to, because we pay you, all right. predict whether massachusetts federal jury but still they reside in a very liberal state. >> they do. couple mitigating factors against that that is that the federal government don't bring these federal charges. these death penalty charges very often. when they do they only get the death penalty about 25% of the time. that doesn't help. >> so when the federal prosecutor comes in and asks for the death penalty, only 25% of the jurors. >> about 25%, right. also to massachusetts that

doesn't help either. >> this is particularly heinous situation? >> it really is. and so the prosecutor is going to have to put forth all the factors and aggravation. they only need prove one. and there are multiple here. the heinousness of the crime. me pred station. particularly multiple victims. >> this kid was 20 years old. his older brother made him do it. he wasn't smart enough to figure it out. that is the only hope that the jury would say well, he wasn't the primary guy. >> he lived after his brother died. and then he, you know, in his little boat. and in that boat he wrote all these things how he hated americans and all those things. that happened after the brother was already dead. >> i think if you are going to have the death penalty, then it is right for the death penalty, absolutely. >> do you want it. >> absolutely. if there is ever a case appropriate for it. >> i have to excuse myself because i'm against the death penalty on all cases. i would punish them worse than death. that's what i would do.

>> okay. they wish they were dead when i got through with them. okay. hernandez, exnew england patriot. this is a thug. former gang member. charged with killing one of his friends. long time. all i need you to do is handicap it. do you think is he guilty or not? >> i think he is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence presented. there were a number of witnesses, 133 2 that testified. but the defense for mr. hernandez is that he was a young man witnessed this horrific killing that he happened it to be present at the scene but he was not a direct. >> he did not testify right? >> he did not testify and the two other people he was with at the time have not gone to trial yet. kimberly is right. great substantial evidence here. >> there is d.n.a. evidence. >> gun left did he scene. >> on a joint he allegedly shared with the victim. >> marijuana cigarette. >> yes. >> he could have shared the marijuana cigarette doesn't mean he killed them. >> in the car, driving to

the car scene. >> he was with the guy associated with the guy. >>, no, no no. >> no eyewitness? >> a video, perhaps, purported to be a gun in his hand. >> purporting to be? >> massachusetts has a joint venture theory which means if you are there, you don't have to be the trigger person, if you are there and you are participating and assisting in it that's murder. >> i don't know, i think he might walk on this. i'm not sure because you guys are paid to do this and i don't follow it. here is horrific story. illinois and this is happening all over the united states. 14 to 16-year-olds, i guess there were two boys and two girls? >> one boy three boys. >> three boys, one girl. they had sex. they record the sex. and then they put it out on their stupid machines and then the authorities came, in wiehl what did they do. >> the authorities said that's child pornography. they arrested them and put them in child custody. now they are in custody until monday when they are going to decide whether or not to stay in custody until trial. they are arresting them on felony child pornography. >> how old is the girl? >> 15 years old. >> the girl is 156789 the

boys were 16, 15, and 14. this happened march 27th. so, you know, multiple charges. this could carry, you know, with them for the rest of their life. >> so they are in state custody in illinois now. that means they are in a home there or something like that. >> the mother found this and turned it in. >> who. >> the mother of the girl found it and turned it in. pulled it off the twitter. it's a very serious case and the whole goal here is deterrent. children understand there are consequences to their actions. >> which they don't now. they think they can do whatever they want. as i said, this is an extreme case but it's happening all over the country. >> may have to register as sex offenders which is significant. >> 16 other states have laws like this. you know there is a problem country wide. >> just define the law. >> child pornography is deal find even in the statute as if you are sending even if it's your pornography even if you are the kid that is sending it to some other kid. >> even if it's con scenel, which of course. >> it doesn't matter how old the child is sending this?

>> well, this is child pornography of children sending it to other children. >> will they have to decide whether to try them as adults or juveniles? >> they will be tried as juveniles. >> okay. so they are charged with child pornography but they will be charged as juveniles which means at 21 whatever happens it to them its expunged. >> make an application. >> i want you guys to follow the case. we appreciate it as always. new thriller lethal beauty. available at book stores right this second. bernie goldberg on deck. he says the national press is afraid of reporting on women honestly. bernie moments away.

back of the book segment tonight, weekdays with

bernie. as you may know, rolling stone magazine reported a false story accusing seven college students the university of west virginia raping a young woman hot magazine called jackie. >> the publisher has said that the blame still lies with jackie. do you think that they are blaming the victim too much? >> we don't believe that in this case jackie was to blame. >> flat out whose fault was this? >> well, it was the collective fault of the reporter, the editor the editor's supervisor and the fact checking department. >> and joining us now from miami, the purveyor of bernard goldberg.com, mr. goldberg. >> everybody knows rolling stone is irresponsible. we don't even know if there is a jackie. i guess there is what she said, nobody can back up. so i don't even know why they are protecting her at this moment on what's the bigger picture? >> the bigger picture bill is that while rolling stone is guilty of journalistic malpractice. they are not the only villain in this story. jackie has gotten away with way, way too much.

let's start with that news conference you just played. the reporter asks: do you think they are blameing the victim too much? let's get something straight. jackie is not the victim. jackie is the liar. she fabricated story. the victim are those young men at the fraternity house. then the professor at columbia university says we don't believe jackie was to blame. well, jackie wasn't to blame for rolling stone's crummy journalism. jackie is to blame for starting this fire that has created so much pain and suffering. then there is the editor of the rolling stone story itself. he says we were too differential to our rape victim. again, she makes up . . . . tougher and not doing that we did make her -- we did maybe do a disservice to her. rolling stone is worried that they did a disservice to jackie. not that jackie did a disservice to a whole bunch

of other people. the reason this happens bill. is because in our liberal, politically correct culture liberal politically correct culture, women are often seen as part of an oppressed class. as a result, it's considered bad form, actually a better term would be bad gender manners to criticize a woman who claims sexual assault. this is the important part. even after -- even after it turns out that she made up the story. that's pathetic. >> the same thing happened to duke, with the lacrosse players. >> exactly. >> then you have a racial element there. it was a black woman who was in the sex trade. who came in and said, look, these guys did x, y and z. it turned out to be bogus. unfortunately the woman fell on hard times. she got karma, i guess, kicked in with her. you're absolutely right. the mainstream media now, if

there's any allegation about any thing, the allegation is front page. very little skeptical about the allegation. especially if it's from a minority, a woman like that. >> that's the point. >> there it is. >> that's the point. okay, look, i've written semi extensively about the duke case. in that case it was a question of good racial matters. so the professors at duke took the side of this crazy woman, and she was crazy as it turns out, who made up this story. the civil rights establishment sided with her. the mainstream media sided with her. because it was good racial matters. now we have something else. good gender manners, where you don't question women. this is disrespectful of women. this is saying, we're not going to treat you the way we treat adults. where we hold adults accountable.

because you're a fragile hot-house flower. so if you make an accusation, even after it turns out that you lied and made it all up we're not going to go after you. you know what? >> you're going to remain a victim even if there's no victimization. >> exactly. >> this comes down to one thing, fear. it comes down to fear. the american press is afraid as portrayed as bigoted against any minority, all right? or misogynist against women. >> exactly. >> they're just scared to death of being tarred with that label. so, therefore, they're going to accept anything that comes from those communities, and they're never going to give a fair shake, or fair reportage to any case. >> you're exactly right. they put certain people in protected classes. and we know who all these people

are. once you're a member of the protected class, you could do outrageous things, and the watchdogs of our culture, the media, they won't go after you. i rarely go out of my way to plug my own website, and i appreciate when you do but i wrote a piece on this at bernard goldberg.com that's one of the more important columns i've written, and i would appreciate it if people have time, to take a look at it. >> we'll do so. "tip of the day," if you like american history and you want to know the real truth about the old west, we have some information for you. the tip moments away. when eating healthy and drinking water just isn't enough to ease my constipation i trust dulcolax tablets. i take dulcolax for dependable overnight relief and in the morning i am back to myself dulcolax, designed for dependable relief

"tip of the day," another american history teal that you will want to know about in a moment. colonel shaffer said sergeant bergdahl was not all there. i disagree. bergdahl planned his actions. his trial will demonstrate that one way or another jack. if the ncis found out that bergdahl wanted to be a hitman for the russian mob you may agree he may not be all there. bill, the fact that bergdahl's traitor? i defer to the process. they have noticed it is the factor breaking all the bergdahl

stories. you were spinning when you said 4% of republicans trust president obama over republicans in congress. of course they do. that statistic wasn't newsworthy. just reporting what the poll said. brian smith las vegas, bill, you and kelly are crazy for applauding the san diego judge who gave the guy 18 years. even the prosecutor thought that was too long. entire lives are ruined, brian. think about it. richard mills, texas, i applaud the judge. i've seen people commit vicious crimes against children get far less years. did you miss that? come on. we are the foremost protectors of children in the media. albuquerque, new mexico great interview, very informative. answered a lot of questions. is it possible saddam smuggled wmds into syria. there's no hard evidence to support it other than one iraqi

guy saying it happened. believe me, the usa was so desperate to get wmds, if that had happened we would know about it. tim stip missouri, judith miller was fed stories by cheney that she reported as fact. tim, you need to get some fresh air. maybe camp out. syracuse, new york, your new premium member on bill o'reilly.com. since you're so tech savvy could you come over and set up the podcast on my android. i'm lucky i can put gas in my car chris. but once you figure out the machines you yourself own you will enjoy hearing the factor anytime you want. check out the stuff we have on all o'reilly.com premium members. the signed poster, one in few in existence for "killing jesus" is jay brian who made a donation, a

big one, to the independence fund, to help severely wounded american vets. i will sign the poster for him. appreciate it, jay. helps a lot of people. "tip of the day" as you may know, this coming sunday 8:00 p.m., the new history series called legends and lives will debut. first two episodes doc holliday and jesse james. we'll tell you what the legends were really like. some of it are shocking. along with the tv program, legends of life. that makes sense. great read for anyone interested in history. especially young people. it lays out short stories and the facts about the american west. which i just find really fascinating. barnes & noble running a special e get it on all the websites as well. we hope you check it out. that is your "tip of the day." that is it for us tonight.

we'd like you to spout off about the factor from anywhere in the world. o'reilly @fox news.com. do not be obtuse. one of our guests tonight was obtuse. can you figure out who that is? one was especially obtuse. but we like all our guests so i would never say who it was. but you might know. again, thanks for watching us tonight. miss megyn is next. i'm bill o'reilly. it's wednesday april 8. a fox news alert. caught on camera, eight deadly shots and now an officer is charged with murder.

this dramatic video slapcapturing that murder. christian faith under fire by the president? >> i've listened to left andss than loving expressions by christians, i get concerned. outrage after airline workers escort a woman with cancer off of her flight. they say she's too sick to fly. how the airline is doing major damage control now. fox & friends first starts right now. and good morning to you. you are watching fox & friends first on this wednesday. i'm heather childers. >> and i'm ainsley earhardt. we begin with a fox news alert.

a south carolina police officer is behind bars for murder. >> an unarmed black man shot multiple times in the back. >> good morning ladies. that police officer could be headed to death row. a witness capturing the horrific exchange that left a father of four lying dead in the grass. [ gunshots ] can you see walter lamar scott running from officer michael slager as the officer fires eight shots at the coast guard veteran. the confrontation happened during a routine traffic stop. the officer pulled him over for a broken taillight and said that he feared for his life because scott took his stun gun during a scuffle. the taser line does appear to be attached to scott as he's running from the officer right before the shots are fired. >> you make a bad decision, don't care if you're behind the shield or just a