Obama threat case dropped by DOJ

"Is It Legal" on whether it is a federal crime to threaten the life of a President


This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," April 3, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET!

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.

In the "Is it Legal?" segment tonight, we begin with the Justice Department dropping a case against a California man, 50-year-old Walter Bagdasarian, who posted this on the Internet. Quote, "Obama, 'F'-word the 'N'-word. He will have a 50 cal. in the head soon. Shoot the 'N'-word," unquote.

Bagdasarian was convicted of threatening a presidential candidate. But the conviction was recently overturned by the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here now, attorneys and FOX News analysts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl, who is the author of the brand-new thriller, very scary and frightening, "Eyes of Justice." I actually read this book, and it's a good book.

All right, Wiehl. So, federal crime, all right?


O'REILLY: To threaten a president sitting or anyone running. Here's the statute. OK? Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap or inflict bodily harm upon. This guy did that. He was convicted. All right?

WIEHL: He was convicted in the lower court, right.

O'REILLY: Was he sentenced?

WIEHL: He was sentenced to time served. And that was -- then he then appealed that sentence.

O'REILLY: So he appealed it and then the Ninth Circuit says, "No, no, no, no." But he did it and the law is clear. So why did they overturn?

WIEHL: It's clear, but they looked to intent. And they said, look, this is the rambling of a guy.

O'REILLY: But does it say in the law you look to intent.?

WIEHL: Knowingly and willfully, that implies intent.

O'REILLY: Knowingly and willfully.

WIEHL: Implies intent.

O'REILLY: So he didn't know he was putting that on the computer?

WIEHL: Let me finish. Let me give you the context. What they looked at. He was making these rantings at 1 a.m.

O'REILLY: One a.m.?

WIEHL: Totally drunk.

O'REILLY: Is there a time in the law like if you do it after 10:30?


O'REILLY: Look, you're making excuses for these people.

WIEHL: I'm telling you -- you asked me what the court said. I'm telling you what the court said.

O'REILLY: OK. They said it was late.

WIEHL: That it was late, he was drunk and that...

O'REILLY: He was drunk?

WIEHL: And that he really -- they said...

O'REILLY: Do you know how many people have been murdered by intoxicated people?

WIEHL: He didn't take any steps. It wasn't an actual real...

O'REILLY: Oh, he didn't.

WIEHL: ... threat that a reasonable person...

O'REILLY: But it doesn't say you have to take steps. It says threaten.

WIEHL: I understand.


I agree with what you're saying. I don't think she disagreed, per se. The issue is the statute is quite specific. And there aren't any elements of the crime that have not been met, right?

O'REILLY: He did it. He did it.

GUILFOYLE: Right. He completed the act. He had the intention to willfully write it, to post it. It was very specific.

O'REILLY: But it was late.

GUILFOYLE: The 1 a.m. rule. Anything after midnight doesn't count against you. That's ridiculous.

WIEHL: But what the court said is this is just ranting of this guy. He had no intent to go through with any of that.

O'REILLY: OK. But that's not -- that's not the court's purview.

WIEHL: The court has to -- the court has to...

O'REILLY: No. The court has to uphold the law.

WIEHL: And it did in this case.

O'REILLY: No, it did not.

GUILFOYLE: The opinion was written by a very liberal judge, OK, that felt that this was appropriate free speech and wasn't going to circumvent it.

O'REILLY: That's crazy. This is so insane.

GUILFOYLE: I get it. And they refused to hear it for the entire court of appeals.

O'REILLY: So it was a 2 to 1 and they wanted to hold people to here. This is so wrong. So wrong.

WIEHL: Why did the administration follow up then?

O'REILLY: I don't know. I don't care about that.

GUILFOYLE: Terrorist prosecution.

O'REILLY: I can read the law. This guy broke the law.

All right, now, Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader, a high school teacher, is accused of having sex with a 16-year-old football player in her school. We are not going to try this case on television. That is wrong.

The interesting part of it is this Sarah Jones won an 11-million- dollar civil judgment...


O'REILLY: ... against an Internet concern. What was that all about?

GUILFOYLE: OK. Here's the deal. Yes, 11-million-dollar judgment. She filed a case against And the actual Web site name is

O'REILLY: Right.

GUILFOYLE: And the judge said that, in fact, she was harmed.

O'REILLY: Why did they say about this woman?

GUILFOYLE: Well, they said that, in fact, she was defamed and that it was an invasion of privacy.

O'REILLY: But what did the Web site say?

GUILFOYLE: The Web site said that she slept with essentially the entire Bengals football team and had STDs.

O'REILLY: OK, so if she wins this judgment -- and this has nothing to do with the criminal case. This was before.

GUILFOYLE: No. Preceded it.

O'REILLY: Before.

GUILFOYLE: Preceded it.

O'REILLY: So then she's hauled in on this, and the authorities apparently have a pretty good strong case, at least they're saying they do.

WIEHL: They're saying they do. They have text messages that say, you know...

O'REILLY: What's the bail for this woman?

WIEHL: She's out on 50,000.

O'REILLY: 5-0?

GUILFOYLE: And then it just got reduced.

WIEHL: And it got reduced.

O'REILLY: So that's not a high bail for her. All right.

GUILFOYLE: No, it's not.

WIEHL: Her mother has also been charged.

O'REILLY: Now, here is the weird part about this. The kid, 16-year- old, his parents...

GUILFOYLE: Right. Sat in the same...

O'REILLY: ... are sympathizing with this woman, right?

GUILFOYLE: Yes. They don't want to prosecute.

O'REILLY: They don't want to prosecute. Is this another "what's her name" in Seattle?

WIEHL: Mary Kay Letourneau?

O'REILLY: Is that another -- is that what this is all about?

WIEHL: Mary Kay Letourneau. I don't know that they're going to run off like Billie for lifestyle. But nevertheless, had a relationship. She's actually getting annulment now.

O'REILLY: I don't care about that.

GUILFOYLE: Well, there's a lot of complications.

O'REILLY: But I do care about the boy's family...

WIEHL: Right.

O'REILLY: ... doesn't want the prosecution.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, they sat in court together like next to each other.

O'REILLY: Together with her family. OK, but that doesn't have any influence on the prosecutors. If they have the evidence, they have to go forward.

WIEHL: Well, clearly, it's harder -- when a victim is going to take the stand.

But if you've got those sexually explicit text messages you don't need the victim. And you know, if this guy doesn't want to go forward because he doesn't think that he's a victim...


O'REILLY: And she's charged with some pretty heavy heat.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, she is. Sexual assault and essentially the indecency statute, saying you're trying to use electronic means to lure a child into a situation.

O'REILLY: And I think there should be more laws passed that if you're a teacher or have any authority over people, you should get even longer.

GUILFOYLE: You don't want to get a pass because of being a cheerleader.

O'REILLY: Now, we were going to do the lottery. But going to do it next week. Don't buy lottery tickets with other people.

WIEHL: Don't do it.

O'REILLY: Don't do that. When you buy a lottery ticket, just buy it for you. Don't be splitting it with the office. Never works. All right, ladies, thanks very much.

Content and Programming Copyright 2012 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2012 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.