‘If That’s Your Case You’re Gonna Lose,’ Former Fox News Host Bill O’Reilly Delivers Sobering News To Special Counsel Jack Smith, Says He Needs Evidence From Pence



OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who has his own successful podcast, named the one person he believes could be the person whose testimony can land former President Donald Trump behind bars.

The former Fox host spoke to radio host Sid Rosenberg on Tuesday where he declared that former Vice President Mike Pence’s testimony could sink Trump.

“So there’s only one guy that can convict Donald Trump, and that’s Mike Pence,” he said. “If Pence goes into the courtroom and says ‘Donald Trump knew the election was not a fraud, but he said it anyway, and I can prove it, and here’s the proof,’ Donald Trump goes down.”


He did say that he was doubtful that the former vice president can provide proof, but “If somebody like Mark Meadows would say ‘Yeah, I was in the same conversation and Trump said X, Y, and Z,’ the jury in the trial, whatever gets there, that would be really damning.”

“Pence, himself, is an honest man. He’s in over his head now. He did the right thing because there was no basis not to certify the electoral votes. In order for Pence to not certify them, there would have had to been evidence presented in a federal court about massive fraud in the election. That evidence was not presented, so constitutionally, Pence had to do what he did. Donald Trump doesn’t believe that, will never believe it, because he doesn’t want to believe it. But that’s the historical fact,” he said.

O’Reilly said that it would be tough to prove that the former president did not actually believe his claims about the 2020 election.

“For the federal government to go in and say to a jury ‘Oh he really didn’t believe that.’ That’s not true. Trump believed it because he wanted to believe it, and I am sitting here going ‘If that’s your case, you’re gonna lose.’ The government will lose, okay? But if Pence comes in with something to contradict my analysis, then things change,” he said.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has responded former President Donald Trump’s attorney John Lauro in a new court filing after the attorney made a series of media appearances.

Lauro appeared on all five Sunday shows this week to defend his client, which Smith used in his request to seek a protective order against the former president, Mediaite reported.

It came after the former president’s attorneys responded on Monday to the request in a DC court.

“The central purpose of criminal discovery is to provide the defendant with materials necessary to prepare for a fair trial. To facilitate the efficient production of discovery to the defense, the Government proposed a reasonable protective order consistent with current practice in this District. The defendant instead proposed an order designed to allow him to try this case in the media rather than in the courtroom. To safeguard witness privacy and the integrity of these proceedings, the Court should enter the Government’s proposed protective order,” the special counsel said.


The special counsel went on to quote the Trump attorney from his television appearances in his request.

“On Sunday, August 6, defense counsel appeared on five television programs and discussed this case in detail, publicly commenting on topics including the parties’ disagreement over the protective order, the defense’s planned legal arguments, the defendant’s actions and statements during the charged conspiracies, and expected testimony of a prospective witness,” he said before listing quotes from the shows verbatim.


“In television appearances, defense counsel also made specific claims about what the defendant allegedly said and did during the charged criminal conspiracies, and discussed anticipated testimony of Michael R. Pence, stating on ABC that the former Vice President would ‘be one of our best witnesses,’ and on CBS that ‘the Vice President will be our best witness,'” he said after the quotes.

“The defendant’s proposed order would lead to the public dissemination of discovery material. Indeed, that is the defendant’s stated goal; the defendant seeks to use the discovery material to litigate this case in the media. But that is contrary to the purpose of criminal discovery, which is to afford defendants the ability to prepare for and mount a defense in court—not to wage a media campaign. The Court should instead enter the Government’s proposed order,” he said.