This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," November 25, 2014. 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!
O'REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story, reaction to the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri. Joining us from Washington is Charles Krauthammer.
All right, you heard the ladies, both prosecuted cases. Both experienced grand jury people. They say there was nothing wrong with the grand jury. That this was the way it came down evidence pointed to self- defense. What say you?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I have no reason to doubt that. I do believe anybody that says it was rigged whether there was some kind of prejudice on the part of the grand jury is really smearing people in an unwarranted way.
After all, the grand jury was chosen long before the incident even happened. It wasn't as if was chosen specifically for this case. But there is something unusual about the way in which it was presented. Normally a prosecutor is trying to get an indictment so he presents a case.
He offers the evidence in a way that will return an indictment and that's how you get the result. In this case, the feeling I have and you get it from the body language of the prosecutor and what he said. The feeling I have is that he thought there was never enough evidence to bring an indictment.
However, he did not want to act unilaterally because knew it's a very sensitive case. If one man had decided that, it would look like the fix is in. What he did do, the responsible thing, I thought in that case he says to the jury I will let you decide.
Here's all the evidence unadulterated, unfiltered, you decide and they agreed with what I think he was originally thinking. Namely there was not enough evidence.
O'REILLY: OK, a couple of things. His father was killed by a black man. His father was a police officer. So, that has been used by the racial hustlers to say that he is prejudiced against blacks.
Number two, one of the flaws in our justice system I believe on the prosecutorial side is that even if the prosecutor in some cases doesn't think the case could hold, he still goes ahead with the grand jury.
Still goes ahead in saying you have got to indict this guy fervently lobbies for indictment even if the prosecutor goes, you know, it's a flimsy case. I know you've heard it. Said I don't want to do this case. No good.
But still my duty is to go in. I'm not so sure that that is the duty of a prosecutor when you have a situation where there is confrontation. And there is physical evidence that can clarify. Am I wrong?
KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I think the duty of a prosecutor, the duty of anyone sworn to uphold the law is to do what he thinks -- to act in accordance with what he think actually happens.
KRAUTHAMMER: If your father was involved in something, we don't judge people by the family history in this country. It's a ridiculous argument. The fact is that the prosecutor obviously thought there was not enough evidence, but in a case this sensitive, he wanted it to be done by 12 impartial people not a bad way to do it.
However, can I understand why the demonstrators or the opposition would say this is a very unusual way to do it and we don't like the way the process worked in this case.
O'REILLY: Now let's get personal here. Benjamin Crump is the attorney for the Brown family. You just saw the stepfather in that family embarrass himself an awful situation. That obviously taints that man for sure.
But Crump went on today with an impassioned, sincere, this is not justice. Black people can't get justice in country. All black people are at risk. He really believes it, Charles. Nothing you can say or I can say is going to dissuade his belief. When you have that attitude, isn't the debate fruitless.
KRAUTHAMMER: Look sincerity is a virtue but it isn't evidence of veracity. That doesn't mean he is right. He may not be somebody who can be convinced, but there are a lot of other people out there who have questions about the process who, I think, would be open to an explanation of what exactly happened.
And you know, to extrapolate and say therefore no black person gets justice in this country, I think is completely wrong, even the president said that last night. We made a lot of progress in the country. This is not evidence of that whatsoever.
There is a very difficult case where a jury of impartial people with no reason whatsoever to go one way or the other decided there simply wasn't enough evidence. You have got to remember in this country we don't revenge people through the family.
That was abolished when you institute law 3,000 years ago. It's the people against a person who kills. It's not the family against. We don't have vendettas in the country. It is the community acting through the grand jury through a prosecutor, through a system that that will bring charges.
You can understand the feelings of the family. But they don't rule. That's the whole essence of law is that it's impartial. Justice is blind. If you don't have that you have nothing.
O'REILLY: Do you believe that in this country black people don't get the same justice as white people?
KRAUTHAMMER: I believe that you can point to cases where black people generally speaking because of their lower economic status less access to high powered lawyers, more likely to get off if you have a lot of money and a lot of good lawyers. You get a white color crime, a violent crime and there are ways that you have advantages if you are a higher socioeconomic status.
O'REILLY: All right, Charles, thank you.
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 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.