>> bret: a biggie fan. that's it for "special report," fair, balanced, and unafraid. >> bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on. tonight: >> are you a pedophile? >> no. >> are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underaged boys? >> i love to be around them. >> bill: accused child molester jerry sandusky says is he not guilty of 40 counts of sexual battery on young children. we will have a look at the solid evidence put forth thus far. >> all my [bleep] is in there all my friends are in there. that's my [bleep] home. he. >> bill: a very liberal new york city judge says authorities cannot remove the occupiers from a park that serves the public. john stossel has some thoughts on that. and we'll update you on criminal illegal alien from mexico who allegedly murdered an american after being

deported twice and charged with sexual assault. how could that possibly happen? is it legal on the case. >> bill: caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. captions by closed captioning services >> bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. if you don't believe the federal government's out of control, listen up, that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. the federal mortgage agency, fannie mae and freddie mac were set up to giving working americans a shot at owning a decent home. if you can't get a private mortgage, can you turn to fanny or freddie for help. the feds don't run those agencies outright but they do provide funding. when fannie and freddie went bankrupt a few years ago the government gave them $156 billion to keep operating. all tolled, fannie and freddie still owe the u.s. taxpayer a

whopping 141 billion. but it gets worse. now cnn is reporting that executives at fannie and freddie are set to receive nearly $100 million in compensation from 2009 to the end of this year. 100 million bucks. the two ceos are set to receive about $12 million each for two years work. so my question is simple because i am a simple man. why are the occupy loons demonstrating in front of fannie mae and freddie mac. certainly the brass are 1%ers and our tax dollars are paying these people. also, they are not going to pay back the 141 billion they owe the folks. but they do accept the lavish salaries anyway. this is why the bloated federal government is hosing all of us. this is why america now owes $15 trillion. fannie mae and freddie mac should be abolished. we can't afford those agencies. we can't afford to pay the executives. and yes some working americans will have a tougher time getting mortgages. but, again, america is broke.

we cannot fund these things any longer. the hypocrisyere is staggering while the occupiers concentrate on private industry where money is earned in the market place. they totally overlook the largely liberal programs that have caused so much economic damage to america. this is why the occupy protests is bogus. they don't care about lavish salaries the feds dole out. they want the government to give everybody money. they despise the private sector. they want the feds to control the economy. next year americans will have to make a decision whether to vote for the democratic party which largely wants to continue the social justice madness or vote for a rather chaotic republic party that says it wants smaller government but who the heck know. president bush the younger spent unbelievable amount of money. the election next year is not about president obama or about his opponent. it's about saving the u.s.a. from economic collapse. that's the memo.

now for the top story tonight. reaction with us, barack and hard place duo monica crowley and alan colmes. colmes, are you down colmes? >> get down. >> bill: to speak the way that you do your people. >> glad you got the memo, good. >> bill: with these big salaries. >> that is terrible. they should get those salaries. >> bill: talk slower. you say. >> they should not get those bonuses, okay? >> bill: all right. good. >> what fannie and freddie is saying bad guys are out. new guys are turning it around. you want to do away with with it. >> bill: we don't know whether they're turning it around or not. their projections. maybe we should talk to barney frank about it since he has been so accurate. >> this is not a liberal program. liberals and conservatives have both supported fannie and freddie. >> bill: colmes, surely you know these institutions were invented not by the founding fathers who would have recoiled, invented to give working americans another alternative.

>> yes. >> if they cannot get a mortgage from their home bank. they go there and then fannie and freddie try to find somebody to give them a mortgage. >> supported by both parties, by conservatives and by liberals. >> bill: fine, we can't afford it anymore. >> we can't afford to fix it. if they are turning it around, they should get bonuses based on the ability to turn it around to enable more people to own a home. >> bill: let monica go. >> arguing turning fan from and freddie around. why last week did they turn around ask the american taxpayer for another nearly $12 billion? >> bill: let me answer the question e that's how they turn it around. we give them money. >> sure. >> bill: got all that money on hand. everything is getting better. >> your point, bill, is a very intelligent point about occupy wall street. they are targeting the banks. certainly a lot of blame to go around in the financial crisis. let's go back to the beginning. the beginning was social engineering in the economy. that is to give people who didn't qualify for a loan for whatever reason, no job, no income, no access, to hold a gun to the bank's heads and force them to give loans.

created. >> bill: they didn't force them. >> they created government sponsored energy -- why should the federal government in any way, shape, or form be involved in the public sector? it's bankrupted the united states. >> bill: we can't do it anymore. on another front, colmes, there is a new book out, throw them all out. okay? it's by a guy named peter sweitzer, smart guy. you know him, right? >> he is funded by the hoover institution. >> bill: conservative crew. >> exxon they have got an agenda. what he says is that 80% of all the loans the federal government has given to so-called green corporations to develop alternative fuel. and this is almost like freddie and fanny. the same theory is in mind that the federal government will spend taxpayer dollars for the greater good, all right, to advance an agenda. in one case it's getting homes in the hands of workers. in the other case getting alternative fuels. in the meantime, 80% of the

loans, according to this book, and it hasn't been challenged factually. >> i will challenge it. >> bill: have been given to people who raise money for barack obama. >> i will challenge it i will tell you where he is. he has an agenda. is he a conservative. funded by the oil companies anyway. these are not loans. the program is he talking about are loan guarantees. they are different than loans. mischaracterized. >> bill: we are quibbling. >> not quibbling. loans are giving people money. loan guarantees are guaranteeing the loan. that's the difference. not quibbling. factually incorrect. >> bill: if the loan is forget fitted, who has to pay. >> wait a minute. if the loan is solyndra, solyndra. >> if they have to pay. >> bill: so len dranchts you want to keep focusing. conservatives keep focusing on solyndra. >> bill: what this is about is phony capitalism. if you gave barack obama a lot of money. >> can i please stain something? >> bill: wait. if you gave barack obama a lot of money to get him elected, there is 80% chance if you were in the green industry you

would get that money back by his administration. >> you say solyndra and beacon another one that failed. 28 projects, two of them failed. 28 projects, two of them failed. >> bill: what have the other 26 delivered. >> delivered all kinds of things like car technology, gas saving fuel, all kind of energy saving. >> bill: i don't know what they have delivered. >> best thing in wind and solar. >> bill: how have they made our lives better? >> you are focusing on two companies out of 28 that succeeded. why is that? loan guarantees are not the same thing as loans. sweitzer is wrong. >> bill: talk for a minute and then you -- when we come back, you think of one concrete thing that all of these billions. >> i just gave you wind, solar. >> bill: no, no, no. one concrete thing, go ahead. >> the reason we are focusing on the two that failed because it cost the taxpayers about a billion dollars. those two failures. you mentioned crony capitalism. i would call this crony socialism. these companies, green energy companies cannot survive in the marketplace. so what the government has done is intervened in that

sector of the economy. propping them up. trying to give them a lifeline because they can't compete in the private sector. >> bill: that's not really fair. because, if it's a new technology, you have to spend money to develop it? >> fine. you go get private money. you go get venture capitalists. if your product is so great and you think it can go compete. the other part is politically so damaging to barack obama is that he ran on a different platform. he was going to change the way things were done in washington. >> bill: i want to buy solar or wind for my house this winter. >> fine. >> bill: you can tell me where to do that? >> can i tell you where to do it? you can look online and go anywhere to find it. >> bill: no one will do that i live on long island. it's a big place. >> i'm from long island. i kind of know. >> it snows a lot in the winter. >> i will give you one other specific example. >> bill: i have to governmental motors. electric motors. >> failure. >> bill: i want to use

alternative energy. give me one. >> i gave you one. you don't accept my answer. >> it's a failure. >> bill: stop. next on the run down, a very liberal new york judge says the occupiers cannot be forced to move out of the park open to the public. how does john stossel feel about that later criminal illegal alien released by the feds after being deported two times then the guy allegedly murders an ameri

>> bill: stossel matters segment as many clean out the occupy wall streeters from public places here in new york city a very left wing judge has told mayor bloomberg he can't do that justice lisa billings who worked for the aclu 25 years and appointed by mayor giuliani of all people basically told the city the occupiers can occupy a park open to the public as long as they want. do pretty much anything they want inside that park. late today, that judge's ruling was overturned by another judge, thank requested to. here now to analyze fox business anchor john stossel. this is an interesting thing. number one, i wanted to highlight lucy, the first judge. lucy, i wanted everybody to know judge billings very well. this is a woman who worked for the aclu for 25 years as counsel. she gets appointed. >> by mayor giuliani. >> giuliani. appoints her. of course she is going to side with these people.

but to cover her butt, interestingly enough, she kicked it over to another judge. she said well, i'm going to let them but i don't want to have this because guys like o'reilly are going to come after me. i'm going to kick it over to michael stallman. all right. there he is. stallman says, sorry, lucy, you know, the city has to have control of its public spaces. that's the right call, right? >> well, control of the public spaces. it depends how you define that. you don't get to occupy. >> bill: look, central park is the biggest park, right? >> right. i have a problem. >> bill: move there tomorrow, stossel? save a lot on rent? get a big super tent and put it up there and get a little porta potty? you can't. >> i'm on the board of the charity that helps manages central park. this judge is the reason we have vendors all over the place because if they are selling books or art you can't license them, she says. that's free speech. look, free speech is really important. it's the first amendment for a reason. you get to assemble but you

don't get to occupy. >> so you agree with me that you can't basically set up a homestead because that's what bloomberg said. bloomberg said, look, we have got to clean this place out because there is rats and disease and everything else. we are going to do that and let you back. but you can't bring your tents and little cooking thing and do that. you can't. you can come back and you can assemble, but you have got to go home and sleep it off. and i think that's logical position. >> he should have done that long before. >> bill: absolutely. >> interesting how long it takes even china tiananmen square they let the people demonstrate for seven weeks. >> bill: and then they shot them. >> that wasn't good. in the united states in 1932, some veterans were upset that they weren't getting their bonus checks. they camped out in washington. >> bill: in lafayette park can you do that across the street from the white house. >> you don't get to occupy. >> bill: you can't live there because it's a health hazard. these poor vendors and business people down in the lower manhattan park have lost

hundreds of thousands of dollars. >> right. you get to speak but you don't get to destroy other people's lives. >> bill: that's right. so you and i, the libertarian stossel and the traditionalist o'reilly agree that the occupiers should have a place to gather and make their points in public. but they can't live there. >> we agree. a rare moment. >> normally you don't let me speak so it's good when you. >> that's a poor excuse because you lose the debate. >> it's your property so you get to control it. >> bill: but i want to get back to you. you lose a debate and then you whine about i don't let you speak. >> that's right. i want my free speech honored here. >> what is this a special you have on your dopey program. >> this is my show on thursday to talk about free speech. where is the line? like you don't get to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire. >> bill: this is fox business network, right fbn thursday. stossel's version of free speech and you are not going to whine anybody that i don't let you talk. >> no. i promise. that was it?

i'm done. >> bill: directly ahead obama care heads to the supreme court risky gamble for the president. is it legal will analyze

>> bill: in the is it legal segment tonight, the supreme court has agreed to decide whether obama care is unconstitutional. arguments are lakely to begin as soon as late february with a ruling by june. that, of course will impact the presidential election. here now to analyze attorneys and fox news analyst kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl. you may remember that i predicted that the supreme court would find this unconstitutional. i believe the vote will be 5 to 4 along partisan lines unfortunately. >> right. >> there was an analysis in the "wall street journal" today that agrees with me. again, it was written by a conservative person. it says basically the states, the states are the ones that hold the power in ordering people what they have to do.

>> exactly. the federal government doesn't have that power. is that a valid argument? >> that's a valid argument. the only thing the federal government will say is under the commerce clause we have the right to regulate commerce and this is interstate commerce because, of course health care passes through state by state but what the supreme court has to look at is never before in our history, o'reilly has the commerce clause been stretched to that point wherever man woman and child in this country would be mandated just because we are here living and breathing to order private insurance from a private company. >> so there is no other order, guilfoyle, in the history of the republic that says to an individual american you have to buy something. you have to buy something. that's never been done before? >> no. that's why this is completely unique and novel situation and why the u.s. supreme court has agreed, in fact, hear it. >> bill: so the prediction on that is that the conservative members of the court, who believe in states rights mostly. >> right. >> bill: will say it's too much power to give the federal government because if they can

do this, order you to buy health insurance, then they can do pretty much order you to buy we would all be wearing easter bon nets. >> i don't know about that. >> bill: here is my rationale. we all have to buy easter bon nets. some for men and women because skin cancer could effect every american. >> right. >> bill: picking up the bill for that and the cost of treating it are great. so everybody has got to buy a hat and you have got to wear it from june to september. >> i do wear easter bonnet and put it on my dog. >> true. i don't want to hear about your easter upon about net. that's a good -- bonnet. >> that's pretty much what it is though. if the federal government. >> once they start. >> bill: once it starts and you have to buy. this then you are going to have to bill buy a whole bunch. >> it's a legal precedent. therefore it can be extended to other things absurd. >> bill: they can always make an argument it's for the greater good of the country and crosses state lines

because the sun goes this way and all of that. >> telling you to get into a contractual arrangement with the private company. you can imagine that? what else are they going to tell us we have to buy? that's the problem stvment. >> bill: we all agree it would be unconstitutional and obama would take a big hit. american airlines has to pay a bunch of stuff, guilfoyle because they kept people on othe runway for, what, four days? >> it's pretty ridiculous. this happened on may 29th. a lot of weather delays. $900,000 fine that they have been ordered to pay because 608 passengers were stuck in the situation where they couldn't get through. they couldn't get water. they couldn't get off. >> bill: how much did the folks get. >> believe it or not the department of treasury is going to be getting the bulk of this fee $650,000 is supposed to pay it within 30 days and $250,000 will be allotted towards refunds, vouchers things that are -- 608. on 16 different planes at chicago. >> bill: does that sound good. >> it's no good. if you break it down.

>> department of treasury is getting it. >> bill: they all get about 3 or 400 bucks. >> that's not much money. what kind of a slap in the face is that. >> do you want to fly? do you really want to be on that airline again? >> bill: i'm happy that they are finally giving the folks a break. because on air tran airlines they were on the plane, wiehl, and then roaches fell on their head? is that what happened? >> a man and his fiance were on a plane, yes. they looked up. you can see the picture there. looked up and saw cockroaches. >> bill: did that roach pay. >> frequent flier. >> bill: frequent flier mile. >> check your bag. the flight attendant apparently according to their suit said shhh. >> don't tell them roaches are falling down on your head. >> bill: people sued air tran for 100,000. >> bill: per roach or the whole thing. >> for the whole thing. >> bill: why, because they were frightened? >> oh, it was -- always that emotional distress. >> bill: did you see snakes on the plane?

snakes running around biting people. >> that is worse. billion billion that would be a million dollars lawsuit. >> i don't want any roaches running through. >> bill: defend saying hey, roaches have to get places, too give me a break. >> air tran. they check in but don't check out. >> bill: here is my question. how does the roach wear the seat belt? how do you buckle up? >> you are in violation. >> bill: maybe tiny seat belts up in the compartment. >> littlevel throw ones. they are adorable. >> i think we are out of control. more with the ladies in a moment. serious story. brutal murder in dallas allegedly committed by a criminal illegal alien twice deported. then he comes back but the feds catch him and let him go. despite knowing his criminal history. and, later, defending the worst among us. child predators. will jerry sandusky beat the wrap? we have two legal opinions. we hope you stay tuned to those reports. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. if you have painful, swollen joints, i've been in your shoes. one day i'm on p of the world... the next i'm saying...

i have this thing called psoriatic arthritis. i had some intense pain. it progressively got worse. my rheumatologist told me about enbrel. i'm surprid how quickly my symoms have beemanaged. [ male announcer ] because enbrel suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervo system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whetr you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have beetreated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. get back to the things that matter most. good job girls. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you.

>> bill: continuing now with is it legal segment last week.

a criminal illegal alien from mexico was charged with the murder of an american citizen in dallas. he was released from the jail before the murder where he was being held on a sexual assault charge and the man had two prior deportations to boot. despite all that, an unnamed federal agency freed him where upon he allegedly murdered a man named jesse bonitas. here now is kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl. ice will tell -- will not tell us. they know but they will not tell us what federal agency released this guy. at first we thought it's the d.e.a. >> it is not. >> bill: usually a big name informer or somebody else. >> it's a drug case. >> bill: the d.e.a. says not us. >> we didn't let him go. it's another federal agency. do we have any clue?

>> we are narrowing it down. we have been trying to get this information from ice. yes, by process of elimination now we know it's not the d.e.a. which all intents and purposes point to that direction. they say another government agency insist he be released. compelling reasons given. >> bill: this is not good enough, wiehl because a guy is dead. this guy killed him, allegedly, deported twice. comes back twice. is in jail on a sexual assault charge. >> rape. >> bill: somebody makes a call and orders him released and then the government won't del us who. >> it's not right. whatever agency did that, i mean. >> bill: they are going to be in huge trouble. >> they will be in huge trouble because at very least even if he was a major witness, somebody who was really heavily into conspiracy and helping the government, then that government agency has a duty, knowing that he was on trial for rape. >> bill: supervise him. >> supervise him, exactly. >> bill: right. so we have now called janet napolitano. >> yes. >> bill: homeland security and she has been very good with us.

the secretary has been very, very good with us. she has been a no-spin person comes on. started to come on the program and tell us who it is. if they won't, we will file a freedom of information request. we will find out. then, once we find out, whoever is in charge, and it's almost got to be attorney general holder, right? it's got to be a justice department agency. >> at the end of the day it's got to go up that high. because, if he was involved as a witness, then they would either slap the material witness upon him. >> he is going to have another problem in addition to the arizona thing. >> we don't know yet. >> we have got to find that out. >> bill: let's be fair. i don't think it's the department of agriculture. >> no, it's not. >> bill: that called up. look, this guy is an ace guy in the fields. we need him. i don't think so. >> it's not d.e.a. doj. >> wanted him out for some reason. we needed to know this. >> they have blood on heir hands for not supervising. >> bill: i'm -- look, i'm angry about the whole thing, that this guy could sneak back into the country twice after

being deported. the second time. if we have to spend money to deport thugs like. this twice. >> and he comes back, that's 10 years in a federal prison for charge. 10 years. if we spend the money to get you out of here and you come back, hey, 10 years. >> because they released him, he committed a murder. >> bill: 10 years. if we put that sign up on the border. if we boot you out of here and you come back again, you get 10 years. >> that's a deterrent. >> that might do it. but you know these pinheads, they don't want to solve the problem. >> they don't. >> how long have i been reporting this 15 years? >> right. >> bill: fordham university up in the bronx, right kids in a dorm. >> 20-year-old kids. >> bill: 20 years old bunk bed. >> four feet off the ground. >> bill: gets drunk. >> he had been drinking that night. >> bill: falls out of the bed and he is paralyzed. >> he he hits his head, hits his spine, paralyzed. >> bill: quadriplegic. >> he is in rehab right now.

can he move his hands through extensive physical therapy wheelchair bound. >> suing the university because they didn't have a bed rail. >> it wasn't a safe design. >> it was not a safe design. by the way, fordham university is suing the bed supplier which is a tell to me they knew something was wrong. it's a college campus. they don't put a bed without any rails four feet up. >> so you assume. look. when does it become -- when does it become the individual's fault for getting drunk, all right, and coming in and nag down off the bed? >> on a supply side. >> bill: students at fordham. how many students in anybody ever fallen out of the bed before. >> they will find that out as part of the lawsuit and the discovery. the suggestion that they are now bringing a lawsuit against the maker, the manufacturer of the bed company suggests there is a problem. it doesn't sound like the design was safe. his family can sue the school and the manufacturer but his damages, his recovery will be

mitigated, compensatory damages due to his correct tore negligence of drinking. >> bill: do you think that will happen. >> yes, i do. in addition, this case is exacerbated because he was injured by the volunteer student e.m.s. that took him from the scene and didn't put a neck brace on him. and that contributed to him being paralyzed. >> it will settle. it will never go to trial. >> bill: we appreciate it we will get to the bottom of this thing in dallas. when we come back, will former penn state football coach jerry sandusky beat the child molestation wrap as michael jackson did. then, charles krauthammer on newt gingrich whether his emergence will hold up. coming right back.

>> bill: o'reilly factor follow up segment tent, as you may know jerry sab dusk charged with 40, 40 counts of

child sexual abuse. he spoke to nbc bob costas last night. >> are you a pedophile? >> in. >> are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underaged boys? >> am i sexually attracted to underaged boys? >> yes. >> sexually attracted? you know, i enjoy young people. i love to be around them. i -- i -- but, no, i'm not sexually attracted to young boys. >> bill: the question in light of michael jackson's acquittal is it possible sandusky will be found not guilty? joining us from houston nicole deboard defense attorney and eric chase. both counselors have represented accused child sex abusers. let's begin with you. that answer to costas, i thought, was very telling. you know, he denies it but he halts, you know, like somebody else would be absolutely crazy that you would even be accused of this heinous thing. am i sexually attracted to them? well, you know, it just --

something wrong with this guy, i think. what did you pick up? >> well, i agree, bill. the first thing that mr. amandola is his attorney stop him from giving interviews. you are absolutely right about sandusky's answers. first he repeated the question. when you repeat a question you are buying yourself time to answer. then in the answer he did give, he said two terrible things. he said i enjoy the company of young boys and then he used the word love. i love being around them. the prosecutor is going to try everything he can, whether he is successful or not, will depend on the judge. is he actually going it try to get that tape played in front of the jury because that did not go well. >> bill: sandusky also said, nicole, that he did take showers with boys which is, again, that's not what normal adults do if they are not your own children. i mean, you just don't do that people not in your house. so he has got those two things on the record, sandusky does.

how do you defend then, knowing when you go in, that you have this deficit that you have 40 counts from a grand jury, that you are going to have a variety of people getting on the train because there are civil litigation also. how do you defend? what is the strategy you have to do? >> well, he absolutely has to stop talking to the media without question after that interview as an example. and as a defense attorney, what we have to remember is that you are looking at the indictment as what it is, which is an accusation. and really the details are going to be so important to this defense team because what they're going to need to do is to investigate all of these allegations by going out and interviewing witnesses, by talking to the people who heard and saw the things that they saw themselves, so that they can try to find out whether or not the allegations as represented in the indictment are correct. and you start to pick apart at the details. and you start to find out where the errors are in order

to make the best attack that you can make against the case. >> bill: what you have come to believe during your investigation and discovery of the case, mr. chase, that the guy did it? he still deserves, under our system, a defense. but, you know, go ahead. >> we're not just investigating the facts of the case. we're investigating the accusers themselves. as a defense attorney. i'm always looking for every piece of paper i can find about whoever it is. child or adult who is making an accusation. >> that's what jackson's attorney did and he was successful in impugning the accuser and accuser's family and jerry said, look, we can't convict this guy on their testimony. i'm talking about you, mr. chase. i'm talking about you. you are an intelligent man. you see the preponderance of the evidence the guy did it now you have to make a moral decision. you are going to try to get him off but you know he did it, how does that work? >> well, we don't make those kinds of moral decisions as

defense attorneys. >> bill: you have to make them. you are a human being. >> that's not our job. >> bill: you have to formulate some kind of opinion on the case and you come to the conclusion the guy absolutely did it. do you feel comfortable going in and trying to get him off? >> bill, that's not our job in the system. our job is to defend our clients. a lot depends on how the case plays out. prosecution comes out and says life in this case. at that point you have no choice but to try the case to the best of your ability and do everything you can. >> drop the case. you don't have to do that. a lot of attorneys resign. do you feel the same way, ms. deborde. if you in the course of your investigation say the guy did it, are you still comfortable going n front of a jury and trying to get him off? >> you know what we're doing as defense attorney, i guess the answer is yes, i still defend people who are accused and done something against the law. the reason that we have a justice system where we have a

prosecution and have a defense. >> we know children's lives and it would seem to me that would be a heavy burden for any defense attorney to have. >> it really is but the fact of the matter is, that the justice system doesn't work are in anyone if it doesn't work for the worst of us. we have a justice system that requires the advocacy system so that jurors ultimately get to make the decision about what they believe to be true. >> bill: that's a good answer. i couldn't do it. but that's a good answer. i will give you the last word, mr. chase, go ahead. >> when we're defending our clients, we're not just defending them. we're defending everybody. the fact that there is people like nicole and i who are willing to stand up and defend these people means the government can't come and accuse you of something just because they don't like your politics, don't like the way they look. don't like the color of your hair. it takes people like us doing what we do to protect everybody. >> bill: all right. thanks very much for coming on you guys. i appreciate. it charles krauthammer on newt gingrich surgeoning in the polls. will that hold in light of the

declines of rick perry, michele bachmann and herman cain. krauthammer is next.

>> candidates surging and then falling back. been a good week for newt gingrich as is he competing now with the leader mitt romney as herman cain has declined in many polls. joining us from washington fox news analyst charles krauthammer. so, charles, can newt gingrich secure the nomination in your opinion? >> well, considering that a couple of months ago i said he had the first lawn since the hen denberg, you would think that he i'm due a little bit of humility now. as you know humility doesn't come easy. i will repair to my column of april 22nd where i was

predicting the future of the race at the beginning. where i had gingrich at 12 to 1. i would say that right now considering how so many of the other candidates have either knocked themselves out of the race so unforced errors or knocked each other out of race like pawlenty and bachmann that i would say his odds are maybe 7 to 1 or 10 to 1. i don't think they are that much better. >> bill: let's then get into why you believe that because obviously the speaker has taken support from herman cain. you can always see where the support goes. rick perry gets into the race, he takes directly from michele bachmann, all right? herman cain gets hammered for seven days straight in the media, some of that support slips over to mr. gingrich. so, gingrich competing with mitt romney in most of the polls. why do you see him as a long shot then? >> because, for every other candidate who rose and fell, as soon as they rose, they became a target.

up until now, gingrich wasn't a player, at least in the polls. so that people didn't go after him. there wasn't scrutiny in the press there weren't attacks from the other candidates. and he has got baggage. i'm not talking about the personal stuff, i find that distasteful and i don't believe in preaching to anybody. but i'm talking about the ideological hairs hair heresies. for example, in the 1990s he supported with the heritage foundation, an individual mandate for health care. now, of course he changed his mind. he has got explanations. that's a fact. the other thing that i think is rather deadly is an ad he cut with nancy pelosi, of all people, a few years ago in which they are sitting on a couch and they are talking about global warming being a real and threatening phenomenon and how governments have to do something about it. >> bill: he believes in global warming. i don't know to what extent. >> not so much anymore. >> bill: doesn't want it to

intrude on the economy. >> no, no. no. we asked him about this in our center seat portion of "special report" and his answer was "i don't know who that was. i can't believe i did that." in other words, what he is saying now is unlike then when he thought global warming was real. he now is ago not stick and he would not obviously have a government spend trillions on it as he he appeared to be advocating in the past. >> bill: okay. now, there is no doubt that the speaker is a brilliant man. you would admit that politically a brilliant guy. thinker. problem solver. comes up with, you know, understands the issues and comes up with what he thinks is the best solution. you wouldn't argue with any of that would you? >> i would say that after the performance of some of the candidates, who have revealed extraordinary emptiness and lack of knowledge, i think it's he refreshing that the non-romney candidate should be somewhat intellectual stature. >> bill: gingrich of all of them is probably the most intelligent speaking. the most experience at the

federal level and really knows. gingrich is trading on that now. i heard him on "fox & friends" this morning. basically said, look, i know how to solve these problems and i have a lot more to say than any of the other candidates and i think that's quite apparent. i believe that people will forget about how polarizing i am and the personal stuff and they are gonna go for a problem solver. that's what his great hope is. can it be realized? >> well, he has got a problem. in that he is a prodient thinker. come up with a thousand ideas. best excuse for these heresies if you are going to write 20 books and cast thousands of votes in congress you are going to contradict yourself at times and commit heresies against orthodoxies at times. that, i think, is his best way out. the fact is he comes up with eight ideas on every issue. not always thought through shows a creative political guy

of the zubious ideas. a lot of them lava and a lot of them are toxic. if he airs the ad of him and pelosi in iowa. he is going to have a hard time talking his way out of it. he can say i have had a long career. i have rethought stuff and my problem is excessive creative thinking and not pandering which i think is his response if romney attacks. i think it will be an interesting contest if the argument is about who has changed and who is stuck with principle. >> bill: thanks very much. here are the results of our bill o'reilly.com poll and we asked whether will the controversy hurt his campaign. nearly 30,000 of you voted. auto% says the situation has hurt herman cain. 49% did not believe. michael j. fox in the spotlight this evening. also strong reaction to the also strong reaction to the attacks on "killing linco

also strong reaction to the attacks on "killing linco ♪

we're centurylink... a new kind of broadband company committed to providing honest, personal service from real people... 5-year price-lock guarantees... consistently fast speeds... and more ways to customize your technology. ♪ >> book signing alert. in of a week from tonight i will be signing copies of "killing lincoln." you have to get your free credentials, a bracelet ahead of time. see you at bookends in ridge wood next tuesday. also the restore the usa gear now at billoreilly.com. hat, shirts, pens, all with your slogans "restore the usa."

a great logo and great message. if you spend more than $25 on billoreilly.com for holiday gifts you get the restore usa bumper sticker free of charge. make your statement known. now the mail. >> i reported the facts, including grand jury testimony and an admission by sandusky that he showered with little boys. do you know any adults who shower with little boys who aren't your own children? and dan from pennsylvania. >> certainly worth noting, dark but the big story is the attitude of the irresponsible students and there were plenty of them. kevin from panama city, panama.

>> marshall wall of maryland. >> susan mayor, white post, virginia. >> they are always going to happen in any book, season, but killing lincoln is dead on accurate. and the few mistakes that crept into the copy have all been correct. and from massachusetts. >> how did i do it, kevin? there's an organized effort to slime the book. we worked hard on it and i'm not going to let the smear people rule. but now people like the washington post pick up things directly from the internet and public it. nobody called me from the

washington post. from ohio. i appreciate that, larry. if you have a couple minutes you might post your reviews on amazon.com but only if you have red "killing lincoln." we have people who have nod read the book posting bogus reviews so they can slime the book. we need some honesty here. it's bad that can happen but that's what we are facing. and about you buy a copy, we send a corresponding one overseas. and as you know michael j. fox has park ( insans disease but check this out. ♪ all right. great chuck barry tune, johnny be good." fox is hosting a charity event

for parkinson's in new york city. he's a patriot. check out our website which is different from billoreilly.com. also we would like you to spout out about the factor from anywhere in the world. o'reilly at -- o'reilly@foxnews.com. the word of the day, do not be a coxcomb from writing to the factor. let us know very passionately how you feel about what you are writing about. if you have time, i want you to get in here. we get from 15,000 to 20,000 e-mails a week come in here but we want to read your letter. but you have to get our attention in the first line. that is the key. again, thanks for watching us tonight. i'll bill o'reilly and please

remember the spin stops here. we are definitely looking out for you. >> good morning, everyone. it's november 16th. i'm gretchen carlson. thank you so much for sharing your time with us today. can you imagine this? bullets fired at the white house? but stopped by the bulletproof glass? but the shooter still at large. details on a man hunt under way in washington, d.c. straight ahead. >> meanwhile, rick perry looking for rebound hoping to shake up his campaign. and the u.s. congress. >> i happened to believe it is time to create a part-time congress where their pay is cut in half. their office budgets are cut in half and their time in washington is cut in half. >> whoa! but flashing salaries on capitol hill is not sitting well with everyone. one democrat, a big one, already firing back. >> we'll cover that. also, will you vote yourself a pay decrease?