Supreme showdown over ObamaCare's contraception mandate

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 25, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling, along with Andrea Tantaros, Bob Beckel, Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld.

It's 5 o'clock in New York City. This is "The Five."


BOLLING: There are some breaking news on the Malaysian Airlines story. A prominent member of Congress doesn't believe that the plane definitely crashed into the Indian Ocean. We're going to dig deeper into that shortly.

But, first, should employers be forced to cover birth control for their employees if it violates their religious beliefs. The highest court in the land took on the hotly contested ObamaCare contraception mandate today.

On the one side, you have family-owned companies like Hobby Lobby run by Christians who object to covering certain methods of birth control that can work after contraception.


BARBARA GREEN, OWNER OF HOBBY LOBBY: Our family started hobby lobby built on our faith and together as a family. We've kept that tradition for more than 40 years. And we want to continue to live out our faith in the way we do business.

The choice the government has forced on us is unfair. And not in keeping with the history of our great nation, founded on religious freedom.
We're thankful that the Supreme Court took our case, and we prayerfully await the justices' decision.


BOLLING: And on the other side, you have President Obama, Planned Parenthood and the radical left demanding employers provide health care that covers all forms of contraception at no cost.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's not my boss's business whether I'm allowed to have access to birth control. This is much more than about contraception. It's about women's health.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let it snow, we won't go. Boss, my health can't wait. Women must decide their fate.

Ho ho, hey hey, birth control is here to stay. The people united will never be defeated.



BOLLING: OK, folks. Your First Amendment right, your religious freedom, guaranteed to you by the Constitution, hangs in the balance.

Let me go to Dana. Let's go for the latest. Dana, you first. Let's talk about it.


BOLLING: What do we -- what do we define here? Is it corporation versus nonprofit? Is it birth control, no birth control, religious freedom, where are we?

PERINO: It's one of those things we're grateful we have a Supreme Court because you can have debates in the newspaper, you can have debates here at "The Five," but it doesn't actually matter what we think. What matters is what the nine Supreme Court justices think.

And they have a very narrow case that's in front of them. Just quickly, the questions are basically this -- does a business or a corporation have a standing to assert a religious claim under what was passed in 1993, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is not about availability. It's about Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The question was the HHS mandate under ObamaCare that exempted lots of other religious groups, nonprofits, everything but corporations, is that all right? And the third thing is, is the government doing the least possible harm? And I think that just based on the reports that I've seen, the solicitor general did not make the sale to the Supreme Court justices.

Tough case, but I think that eventually I think the Hobby Lobby people will win based on that narrow interpretation of the law.

BOLLING: Ands, it feels like political ideology, ideology trumping small business, people who demand their own First Amendment right to religious freedom.

TANTAROS: Yes, the progressives strike again, having no regard for the First Amendment. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers didn't want, the government scrutinizing businesses, who's religious and who is not and telling them how to execute their faith.

This is very simple. The U.S. Constitution does not want Congress to pass laws interfering with people's religious rights, period. What they're saying is this is the central argument of the administration, that for- profit companies like Hobby Lobby have no religious rights under the First Amendment. That is the most asinine, bizarre, crazy assumption, and it only could come from the progressive wing of the left that has no regard for the First Amendment or the U.S. Constitution.

If these people don't like it, they can go work somewhere else, but I actually think the court is going to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby -- again, demonizing them for being a corporation making a profit, exercising their rights under the First Amendment. That holds up in my opinion.

BOLLING: Dana and Andrea point out something very important. There have been a lot of groups that have gone to the Supreme Court and asked to be not held under the law because of religious beliefs and the Supreme Court has said, no. For some reason, this one seems to be different because -- because of that profit motive. Is the court now telling us what is right and wrong a profit?

BECKEL: It seems like political ideology is the one trumping the Constitution here in the form of Hobby Lobby. Look, the people who work for them, they are not -- a corporation is not a person, and the idea, to cite what Mitt Romney said, the fact is that people who work for this company may believe, they don't believe what the owners believe. They may want to have this kind of exception.

There's nowhere in the law that mandates the government pay for abortions or companies pay for abortions. It's about birth control. The idea that some people believe because they have religious beliefs, they ought to impose that on their employees while they're making a profit I think is absolutely ridiculous and un-American.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: It is so un-American that a business is making a profit and offering 16 --

BECKEL: That's not what I said. That's not what I had.

GUTFELD: Let me finish -- and offering 16 types of contraception.
But they're not offering for, that is the lie here. They're saying they're being denied contraception.

No one is stopping you. Please use birth control. After listening to you, I will pay for it.

Look, the country is divided right now. There's one side. Hobby Lobby, they made -- they built 500 businesses, 16,000 employees. They actually make things. That's one part of America.

On the other side, you have the agents of entitlement, Bob. They target businesses. So, what you have is the American dream versus the American ream. The American dream is losing, unfortunately, to those loud mouths who are lying. They're lying. Nobody is stopping you from getting your pills.

By the way, by the way, it doesn't constitute a burden if your boss isn't buying your pills. That's not a burden. Your lack of happiness is not a burden. You can -- if you have a problem buying these pills but you can buy everything else, the problem is on you.


BECKEL: Let me go out on a limb. I assume for a second that the owner, that woman --

GUTFELD: Terrible woman, right, Bob?

BECKEL: I was a little embarrassed by some people on my side, frankly, but leaving that aside. I would bet she doesn't like homosexuality, too. Is that --

PERINO: How do you know that?

BECKEL: I think I can make a fair assumption.

PERINO: You don't think you can be for gay marriage and think abortion is wrong?

BECKEL: Let's assume the company owners, the family owners, do not like gay marriage.

TANTAROS: So, that's Bob's position.

BECKEL: Let me finish for a second, just please?

If they didn't want to pay for HIV drugs because they weren't in favor of gays, then what would you do then?

PERINO: That will be a question then.


TANTAROS: That is not the case in front of the Supreme Court. Deal with the case in front of them right now. The court will handle that case.

BECKEL: I don't see any difference. I see no difference.

GUTFELD: But do they say that? They don't.

PERINO: It's a government mandating the purchase by the company for the employer on HIV drugs. If that's the case, perhaps maybe one day you could have a case like this.

But this also, I think, turns on something else, which as you said, Bob, that corporations are not a person. Actually, Supreme Court justice asked the solicitor general about that and he said there have been no cases holding a corporation can bring a claim under this act, but there's no claim saying they cannot. That is something that will be asked.

Well, as a religious nonprofit, why should they get an exemption and not the corporation?

BOLLING: There's the $64,000 dollar question right there. That's the one --


BECKEL: They're in the business of promoting religion, which is something the Constitution --

PERINO: Should Hobby Lobby become a nonprofit and they can do whatever they want?

BECKEL: Hobby Lobby is not promoting religion. They're promoting profit for themselves.

GUTFELD: That's terrible, profit for their 16,000 employees.


BECKEL: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.

PERINO: Are there no nonprofits that make a profit?

BECKEL: Pardon me? A lot of nonprofits are in the business of making profits as well, if they're on the right side of the aisle, they're OK.

BOLLING: Not the profit Hobby Lobby are paying their taxes, supporting all these people who are bringing these actions.

GUTFELD: Can I make another point? I guarantee you 99 percent of the people talking about this issue right now have never heard of Hobby Lobby.
And what you see is a media that turns this into a target of mockery, that Hobby Lobby will become a punch line, a religious punch line like Chick- fil-A because they deny women's right to pills, which is incorrect.


BOLLING: No, no, go for it, because remember what happened to Chick- fil-A after the hubbub?

BECKEL: I don't know --

BOLLING: Maybe people come out in force in favor of Hobby Lobby.

All right. Surprise, surprise, "New York Times" frames the debate this way. Check out this headline. Quote, "The Supreme Court on Tuesday, today, will hear arguments in a case that pits religious liberty against women's rights." Really, "Times"? Is that a fair and balanced headline?
Is it about women's rights or is it liberal ideology crushing religious freedom?

We report, Ands, you decide.

TANTAROS: I hate to break it to "The New York Times," there's no women's right in the amendment. There's a First Amendment right.

And frankly, to have women and assume there's a woman sitting in the finger painting department of Hobby Lobby who is so upset she can get these other forms of contraception but she can't afford a $20,000 or $30,000 or
$40,000 plan B abortion pill should probably worry about getting another job to pay for it. It's not our responsibility for the woman in the cross stitching section to fund and subsidize her sex life. If it was so important, the administration could figure out another way to get her a check directly.

But this is the whole feminist myth. This is what they're selling to women. My body, it's between me and my doctor, unless a bill becomes due, and then I'm not Beyonce anymore.

I'm oppressed, I'm weak, I'm not a strong woman.

It's a terrible message. Make up your mind -- are women strong or not?

BECKEL: That means the woman at Whole Foods who sells tomatoes doesn't have the right, either? Hobby Lobby because the owners are religious people, and they say they want to impose this --


BOLLING: Can I point this out, though? Hobby Lobby is saying there are two forms of contraception that they disagree for religious reason.

BECKEL: I understand that.

BOLLING: Plan B and the IUD, which destroys a baby after there's a conception. That's the difference between that and all -- they're not saying we won't do it because it's all contraception. They're concerned with those two.

BECKEL: I don't like the idea of after pills to destroy fetuses either, but it's in the law, and nobody has the right to separate themselves out.


PERINO: Laws can be challenged. And under --

BECKEL: Challenge it.

PERINO: That's what they're doing, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Interestingly, Hobby Lobby says the reason they provide health insurance, which they don't have to do, but the reason they do is because of their Christian beliefs, because they want to attract their own employees. This is a very narrow request they're making to the government, which Obama administration has been willing to give to others, and the question will be do they have to give it to them?

Can I just point out why the bill was passed in the first place in 1993? Do you know why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exists?
Because Democrats in Congress were mad that the Supreme Court declined to endorse a religious exemption for the use of peyote by members of the Native American church. OK, now, how the world turns? It comes right back around on them.

And on this particular issue, I think the administration is going to be proven wrong.

BECKEL: I'm all for that, by the way. I don't think the church was making a profit, do you?


PERINO: The tribe?


PERINO: It wasn't a question. The point is that the question is -- can a corporation bring a suit under this act? And that's what they're asking.

GUTFELD: I mean, at this table, I am without question the least religious person here, probably at FOX. I don't go to church. I'm not religious.

But we -- this bothers me because we're in a world where we hound and mock success stories to placate angry entitlists (ph). That's what it's about.

And, by the way, we have exempted unions and government staffers from this law but not these people and that's because they worship God and not government. If they bowed before the altar of Obama, everything would be OK.

BOLLING: All right.

PERINO: And not just the whole -- those groups have been exempted from the whole enchilada because they're asking --


BECKEL: You're suggesting the whole 16,000 believe what the owners believe?

GUTFELD: Hey, look, you can work anywhere.

BOLLING: Exactly. You can work somewhere else.

GUTFELD: Imagine they're happy there.

BOLLING: If you don't like what goes on, you can walk away from your employer, whether it's FOX or Hobby Lobby.

TANTAROS: Or pay out of pocket, God forbid.

BOLLING: This one is very interesting. Even the Vatican, the Vatican, is pushing back hard on President Obama's antipathy for Christianity. Not my words, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Vatican chief justice, said this, quote, "The policies of the president of the United States have become progressively more hostile towards Christian civilization."

Bob, now here, there you hear from the Vatican. Obama's policies, hostile.

BECKEL: I don't tend to use the Vatican as my guiding religious force.

BOLLING: You don't?

BECKEL: No, because I'm a Protestant, I'm not a Catholic. But leaving that aside --

BOLLING: He said Christian civilization.

BECKEL: That's what they say. What does this get back down to? It gets back to the Affordable Care Act, doesn't it?

BOLLING: Obama's policies.

PERINO: It gets down to the mandate on what the request that Hobby Lobby is making.

BECKEL: Were Catholics given a pass on this?

PERINO: Yes, that's the question in front of the court. Does a corporation like Hobby Lobby have the same rights as a nonprofit organization or a religious organization that has asked for and been granted that very exemption by the court.

BECKEL: Let me ask you this question, don't you think religious organizations, pretty much all believe in the same thing or they wouldn't be working for them?

PERINO: What if we had the atheist church of whatever and they believe that. I -- should the government be allowed to tell Greg's business what he can and he cannot provide to his employees. At that point, you don't even need Greg. You just need the government to be able to take care --

BECKEL: Of course, they should be able to tell them what to do.

TANTAROS: Well, what happens if they tell a Muslim business they need to serve pork? Or they need to do something --

BECKEL: Well, that's a health --

PERINO: They could be.

GUTFELD: They're probably equal in area of burden. I mean, I don't think it's a burden for somebody not to have one of 16 choices. I don't think that's a burden.

But basically, this is about a business that's just minding its own business, and government getting into its business. I don't have any hobbies, anyway, but I hear they have great glitter pens and construction paper and I might start making unicorns.

BOLLING: Very good.

Very quickly, there are those who say Hobby Lobby should take the penalty and not provide insurance for their employees. That would cost them $24 million in fees alone, taxes, I guess you would call them, and then the employees wouldn't have insurance.

TANTAROS: What happens if it puts them out of business and the woman who is screaming and yelling doesn't have a job? Then she really can't get her birth control and her condoms and whatever else.

BECKEL: Health insurance is an enticement for people who work for them.

BOLLING: We do. That's true.


BOLLING: And that's what Hobby Lobby is trying to protect.

We've got to leave it right there.

Next, President Obama is worried about nukes. Get this -- he's concerned about a bomb dropping right here at home. Details ahead.

Plus, it could be crazy Harry Reid's wildest whopper ever. He's actually blaming Republicans for Russia's annexation of Crimea. Has the majority leader become totally unglued? We'll debate that gem next on "The Five."


TANTAROS: Well, at the time when America should be touting its military might, our commander in chief went to Europe and restated his plans to shrink our forces. He told a Dutch newspaper, quote, "In the United States, after two wars, we're moving towards a leaner military."

Today at a news conference in the Netherlands, the president was asked this direct question about the world's perception of America and of him.


REPORTER: Are you concerned that America's influence in the world, your influence in the world, is on the decline?

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think if the premise of the question is that whenever the United States objects to an action and other countries don't immediately do exactly what we wan want, that that's been the norm, that would pretty much erase most of 20th century history.
The world's always been messy.


TANTAROS: He was also asked if he still thinks his former opponent Mitt Romney was wrong about Russia.


REPORTER: In the light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America's biggest geopolitical foe?

OBAMA: Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.


TANTAROS: All right. Before we get into Putin and Russia, Dana, this looks a little bit more confusing than it does cogent with what the president's plans are. What do you think the message is here? I mean, he's touting leaning down the military and explaining that we're throttling back. Is this apology tour number two?

I mean, what do you think the president is trying to do?

TANTAROS: I'm one that gives wide deference to any president as a commander in chief to set the foreign policy of the United States. I'm willing to lead if I'm persuaded that it's the right thing to do. I am confused if you look at the series of actions over the last particular years, in particular Syria, for me, was a big one that I just -- I was not able to understand where he was coming from.

I also thought it was interesting that instead of answering the question about whether Mitt Romney was right in the debate and maybe just having a gracious moment to say, you know, even a broken watch is right twice a day or something funny, he had to bring up nuclear war in Manhattan as a distraction so no one thinks about what he was talking about and we're worried about a nuclear weapon going off in New York City.

GUTFELD: They were.

TANTAROS: Well, they're both real risks, Greg. Why can't the president acknowledge beyond the one-dimensional argument that one is not, but I'm more worried about a nuclear weapon. They're both somewhat risks.

GUTFELD: I'll say this -- the president may have the abs, but he doesn't have the stomach. This is not a White House. This is a day care center for overgrown grad students who believe group hugs make for sound foreign policy.

Right now, he's cutting the military. He's like the captain of the "Titanic" ordering ice cubes. Putin is not in the G8. That's like -- you know, like that's going to break his heart. It's like telling Bob he's spanned from spin class.


GUTFELD: Break your heart, isn't it?

BECKEL: Yes, it does.

TANTAROS: Eric, when you look at past presidents, OK, whether you agree with them or not, you can look at FDR with his Yalta conference moment, you look at JFK with Ich bin ein Berliner, when you look when Reagan went to the Berlin wall and ended the Cold War. They were all doing something specific with these trips. What is the president doing?

BOLLING: Well, I don't know. He's spending a lot of money, number one. He's getting face time. He's getting global face time, which he likes.

I tell you what he did do there. He continues what he told us he was going to do in June -- at Cairo University in June of 2009, where he was going to -- he was going to scale back the American exceptionalism, the pride in America, and say that, look, we're going to scale down our military, which I believe is a mistake.

We have talked about this before. I don't know that we need the military boots, the number of personnel, but we still need the military spending. He also -- what?

BECKEL: Nothing, go ahead.

BOLLING: Let me say something else. He also said something very -- I don't know if they're going to roll more sound, but he said something very disturbing. He said -- a little later on in the answer about whether Mitt Romney was right or wrong about Russia, he said, no, Russia is not a super power. Russia is a local power, he called them, Russia local power.

Now, Vlad Putin is sitting there listening and he's only 1,600 miles away from Moscow, listening to President Obama saying he's scaling back our military, the United States military, and calls Russia a local power.

Boy, is he asking for trouble?

TANTAROS: Bob, how does it benefit the United States to have the president do a tour to say we're cutting down on the military?

BECKEL: You know why? I'll tell you simply why because the audience he had there, all the European nations have not put up the money. They want the United States put up the money and blood and they have been willing to do it.

What he's saying to them is, no more. We're going to have a leaner military, we're going to cut back, and you, since we go over there and whether it's the Caucasus, Iran, Iraq, going into Afghanistan, go all through it, and the United States has paid with money and with blood, and it's time for these people to step forward. The Germans said they couldn't do it before because of the treaty they signed after World War II. That's been abdicated now, they're now allowed to do that.

It's time for Italy, for France, for England is better at it, but most of the countries who take advantage of our protection, our protection, our money, to pay their fair share or get the hell out of the way.

BOLLING: You know what? That's right.

PERINO: But then we're not in the lead.

BECKEL: So what? They're in their own backyard.

GUTFELD: But the reason why they can't shift is because they have shifted all their money to domestic spending, which is exactly what we're doing.

BECKEL: Oh, come on, you can't say that about the Germans?

GUTFELD: Well, most of Europe. The thing is -- that's the point, it comes from a toxic reversal of reality that military supremacy guarantees domestic tranquillity. We have a president that sees that in reverse, that the idea that community activism means the world won't hurt us. It's a terrifying idea that if we just act cool, everything is fine.

BECKEL: The point you made about the American exceptionalism equals military strength is absolutely ridiculous.

BOLLING: No, no, I didn't make the point.

BECKEL: It's worse that ridiculous.

BOLLING: What President Obama said in 2009 at Cairo University, he was apologetic for American exceptionalism. Can I agree with you though?
I 100 percent wholeheartedly agree with you that if there's any more issues with Russia, with Crimea, with Ukraine, that the European community, especially Germany, needs to step up if they expect any support from the U.S.

If that's what the purpose of the trip was, which I don't believe for one second, if that was the purpose, I agree with you 100 percent. I think he needs a global stage --

BECKEL: The great country we built in Iraq and the first two people we gave leases to, the Chinese and Russians, how about they give them to us?

TANTAROS: Very quickly, I just want Dana, last word very quickly.
You heard the president sort of belittle Russia, just a regional power, and then you heard Harry Reid today in the Senate --

BECKEL: Less than that.

TANTAROS: I think that's not right -- then you heard Harry Reid in the Senate blame Republicans for the annexation of Crimea, what are they trying to do here? Republicans, it's the Republicans' fault?

PERINO: I think -- again, I think it's another fumble on the legislative side. I think with the IMF reform taken out of the bill, I think they'll get that Ukrainian money.

On the point about whether these other nations should have more skin in the game, I absolutely believe that is true. We should make them play ball, rather than say we're going to take our ball and go home and good luck to the rest of you, because I do believe it comes back to hurt us in the future.

TANTAROS: That's right. But with the message of giving up the Internet, it doesn't seem like the message we're sending. It seems like we're waving the white flag and waving our hands.

BECKEL: Yes, we're just all surrendering and leaving.

GUTFELD: Well, look, we've just to go by what we see. And the fact is, Obama doesn't have a crystal ball, he has a clueless ball. He missed Russia.

TANTAROS: Next up, Harry Reid and the liberal media are working overtime to smear the conservative Koch brothers. "The Washington Post"
just went as far as to publish a false story on them. So, will the paper apologize? That's coming up next.


BECKEL: Who's this is?

GUTFELD: It's me. Hey.

Last week, "The Washington Post," a paper, ran a piece that claimed the biggest least holders in Canada's oil sands were the evil right wing Koch brothers. Evil, right wing Koch brothers, that's triply redundant for those in the media.

The whole point was to tie them to the oil sands to kill the Keystone Pipeline because, you know, we're so much better off paying extortion to the Saudis while waiting for cars that run on unicorn spit.

As John Hinderaker of the "Power Line" blog points out, the claims were wrong. So do these "Post" writers admit their error? No, instead they claim -- hilarious, this is awesome -- that the value of their piece does not depend on truth but in stirring up conversation. They said, quote, "The `Power Line' article itself and its tone is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers' political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in the election year. That's why we wrote the piece."

Oh, OK, so you misreported on purpose to get real reporters to expose you as incompetent boobs. Congrats. Mission accomplished. You're a joke.

Now, I never call for reporter to be fired over mistake. But to defend your ineptitude as a conversation starter, like it's a game of Scattergories, you should be working as a clown at children's birthday parties, not reporting for a major paper.

But it won't matter. "The Post" will just double down anyway, look for a Pulitzer for these boobs soon. Is there a special Dan Rather category?

Right, so, you know, before the show, "The Post" responded to a request by one of our producers. They write, "We didn't write the piece to stir debate. We wrote the piece because others were using the information to stir debate. We were taking note of that and providing a broader context."

That's baloney. They started the article, and they're basically running away, distancing they're themselves from this blog.

But, Dana, are these really journalists or advocacy journalists?

PERINO: Well, so I was -- before I was in the White House press office, I was a spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. If you're a Republican spokesperson in Washington, D.C., you've probably gone round and round the mulberry bush at some point about the environmental story.

I take their pieces with a grain of salt. I do think it was on the merits wrong. The rebuttal to Hinderaker's piece had to be longer than the piece they wrote in the first place.

GUTFELD: Yes, exactly. Andrea, if a non-liberal writer had this used this excuse, like I just made all this debate to start a debate, how quickly would they lash out?

TANTAROS: It's others who used the information. God forbid we would fact check the information. No, we don't have a role to that. And they were trying to say that they just simply host the blog, it was pretty weak on its face.

What I don't understand is why the progressives are so singularly obsessed with the Koch brothers. These are pro-gay, pro-life, pro- legalization of marijuana. They fund the arts, they fund the sciences.

They're trying to cure cancer. They fund the Metropolitan Museum.
They're actually not these crazy right wingers.

Why they're so obsessed with them? Why, Bob, do you hate them so much? They sound like liberals you can -- I mean, Republicans that liberals can love.

GUTFELD: They're good for fund-raising.

BECKEL: Let me just say that they certainly are that and they will be more and more, believe me.

"The Post" was wrong about this. They used this oil tars in Canada.
They were wrong. They should have just admitted it.

What was right, because we don't have much time on this block, is that the Koch brothers and their allies on the right wing and the reason they give -- they probably like the arts and all of the rest of it, but their money, their massive amount of money is going into create and protect, to perpetuate the right wing in this country, and Harry Reid is right. The bill that was sanctions against Russia was held up by a bunch of right-wing people, a lot of whom were Eric's friends, and they were done at the behest of the Koch brothers to protect them against --

BOLLING: Thank God those right wing guys who are only in it for a smaller government, more liberty, more freedom.

Can I just point something out? Those bloggers want to stir debate with accuracy, they could go after Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett was second richest man in the world. But he, in fact, does benefit from the Keystone Pipeline. He has a substantial stake in Burlington Northern Railroad, which rails crude oil, very, very expensively from Canada -- the Canadian sands all the way down to the refiners in America --

BECKEL: But he's not trying to break the law.

BOLLING: No, no, he's not breaking the law. No, Bob, he's not breaking the law, but they were accusing the Koch brothers of doing something, I don't know, either illegal or unethical when the reality is, if you really want to apply that same standard, apply it to Warren Buffett who also isn't breaking the law, however definitely benefits from no Keystone Pipeline.

BECKEL: I just keep telling you, I didn't agree with the Keystone pipeline, but what Warren Buffett is doing, is what the Koch brothers are doing is trying to cover up all their massive amounts of money because there were regulations in that bill --


BOLLING: Warren Buffett was one of the biggest supporters of President Obama everywhere.

BECKEL: The reason the bill got stuck before the holiday was because the right wing put up an amendment that would have made the Kochs not come under the regulations of the federal Election Committee. That's exactly what it was about.

GUTFELD: I'll tell you what, though --

BECKEL: So they jeopardized the Soviet Union, the Crimea issue over the ridiculous Koch brothers.

PERINO: Disagreed. I think when they added that IMF amendment to it, I think the Democrats are the ones who sank the bill. But it will get work out --

GUTFELD: By the way, "The Washington Post," the bottom line is they did this because they didn't want the pipeline. That harms our national security because it makes us beholden to crazy people.

PERINO: I don't understand why they don't like it?

GUTFELD: I don't know, either. Well, you know what? The Kochs add life.

Coming up, if you've an annoying coworker, help is on the way. Dana, who is annoying, has a lot of tips. She's the expert.

Stay tuned for those.


PERINO: Did you work with anyone who drives you nuts? There's always at least one irritating coworker at the office.

What's the best way to deal with them?

The career site Glassdoor just put together six helpful tips:

Maintain a positive attitude.

Find common interest to make them more tolerable.

Try to ignore their flaws.

Kill them with kindness.

Politely reject their attention.

Be assertive.

If the problem persists, tell them they're a distraction. If they don't get the picture, get your manager to help you.

Now, this story was pitched by our producers. So, they're either trying to send a message to us or to one another.

We'll take it around the table.

Bob, do you have any annoying colleagues?



PERINO: Yes, which ones? Do you want to name them?

BECKEL: Today, I could count four, easily, pretty annoying.

No, I think this idea -- some of these are pretty good ideas about trying to keep a positive attitude.

In the case of Greg, for example, you try to ignore his flaws. I try to do that all the time.

And politely reject their attention. I do that with Eric a lot.

Be assertive, I do it with you when you start scowling at me.

So, yes, these are some things that are probably worthwhile.

TANTAROS: How do you handle me?

BECKEL: I don't, baby.

PERINO: Greg, one of the things on the list is you try to kill people with kindness. I notice you do that a lot around the office.

GUTFELD: Well, kindness is a rifle. You know, I think these are the worst tips ever. I think --

PERINO: I didn't think they were very good.

GUTFELD: No, these tips are inviting conflict. I don't -- you have -
- OK, first off, it's a great problem to have. There are a lot of people who don't have this problem because they don't have jobs. So, if you have an annoying employee, employer, coworker, that's great.

Having said that, avoid eye contact. When someone enters the room, you always find something to do. Oh, look over here, I think there's some printer paper that needs shuffling, and then you walk away.

Oh, the BlackBerry.

BOLLING: Best way -- I'm sorry.

GUTFELD: This is the way out for everything. It's like being in a subway train. It's the same thing, except less smelly.

PERINO: Not that you have to get along. One of the things I do agree with is that if you work with somebody who's negative, it can bring the whole place down.

GUTFELD: Oh, shut up.


TANTAROS: Would you be speaking of somebody specifically name rhymes with meg rutfeld (INAUDIBLE)

No, see, I try to focus on Greg's positives. Greg is more the sullen, negative guy, but I think he has a lot of other great qualities.

GUTFELD: I am not that grumpy.

TANTAROS: Like Bob, for example, Bob can get grumpy, and you get on my nerves, but I try to focus on what a good person you are and a good friend.

PERINO: There's another thing that happened to Eric, because remember the space heater problem?

BOLLING: Oh, yes.

PERINO: In the cubicle.

BOLLING: Yes. Remember? I remember it every day. Julie works for Gasparino, producer, she has a heater under her desk, but all the heat comes under my desk. By 3:00 in the afternoon, I'm like --

PERINO: And that's why you're so hot.

BOLLING: But what do I do? I don't mention it --


BECKEL: But all said and done, if they don't straighten it out, they don't change their ways, it's really annoying, you mug them outside when they come on.

BOLLING: Can I ask you very quick? I know we got to go, but you have one of the best, best theories on the planet. If something is bothering you, get it off your chest right away.

BECKEL: Right away.

BOLLING: Right now.

PERINO: OK. I have one other thing. Colleagues, if you have a bathroom that is shared between men and women, men, you still have to put the seat down. OK? Not that that happens or anything.

GUTFELD: And the other thing is, if you hear a clicking noise, it's not a camera.

BECKEL: And what is this about putting the seat down?

PERINO: Still ahead, Malaysia's prime minister announced yesterday...

BECKEL: Why do we have to put our seats down? You can put the seats up.

PERINO: Announced yesterday that Flight 370 went down in the Indian Ocean, but one U.S. lawmaker is challenging that declaration. You're going to hear from him next.


(MUSIC: Alannah Myles, "Black Velvet")

BECKEL: Who picked that song?

Yesterday, without producing evidence of any wreckage, the Malaysian government unequivocally announced Flight 370 had crashed in the southern Indian Ocean with no survivors. Can we trust the Malaysian authorities that have botched the investigation throughout? Representative Peter King thinks not.


REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Well, from day one, Megyn, the conduct and the tactics of the Malaysian government have been inept, and in many ways disgraceful and inexcusable.

In no way is our government saying that this is definitive. And I don't know what could have justified the prime minister doing that today, other than to deflect some of this criticism he's been getting, particularly from the families and from the Chinese and, actually, from all over the world.


BECKEL: Families are equally upset at the Malaysian authorities and are lashing out.



GRAPHIC: F**k Malaysian Airlines! Malaysian Airlines is lying! F**k Malaysian Airlines!


GRAPHIC: They're all liars! Is taking people's lives a matter of nothing?


GRAPHIC: Something is being withheld!


BECKEL: All right, Eric, it's a good question. We followed this thing for weeks now, and the Malaysians have not distinguished themselves with facts very well, and all of a sudden they get definitive in one day.

BOLLING: Well, when we talked about this yesterday, there's no explanation whatsoever, other than possibly for the first time in history, I agree with Peter King on one thing, that the Malaysian government and Malaysian Airlines have decided that they don't want the scrutiny. They don't want the public eye. They don't want the responsibility anymore.

I don't know, and like I said yesterday, we all said yesterday, that the families must be absolutely outraged and we're seeing it right now.
They've got to be ticked off. They deserve a lot better than they're getting right now.

BECKEL: Do you think the world press is going to leave this alone because the Malaysians say it's over?

PERINO: I think that for a while, unless -- I think it will just take a while for the investigative reporters to try to work to see what they can find out.

When we get a little bit more information from our own FBI, after looking at the simulator, I think that will maybe at least be another piece that helps us try to solve the puzzle.

BECKEL: You've been on top of -- your brother, we were talking to your brother-in-law. Is this -- has he heard this? What does he think about what the Malaysians are saying?

TANTAROS: He just doesn't believe you can trust anything they're saying. The facts don't add up, Bob. Even if they try to get this off the front pages, which I think is the singular thing that they want to do, get this off the front pages, it still doesn't explain why that plane went down in that area. Even if they're saying, "Yes, that's the plane," they still have to answer the question, why is the plane down there? It's so far from the direction it was supposed to be going. So a lot -- a lot of questions.

BECKEL: Greg, if it gets to the point here in another two or three weeks and countries decide we're simply not going to spend the money anymore to keep looking, that's going to be a tough call for countries to do it. But at some point, you can't keep going, can you?

GUTFELD: That's true, but this is the issue. We live in an age where it could be your family. Planes are now weapons. It's imperative that our government doesn't just get the easy answer, but that gets the right answer. So we can't stop thinking about this.

BECKEL: What if we don't get the right answer? What if there is not an answer here? They never find that plane.

GUTFELD: That's -- that's possible, but I just don't believe them.

PERINO: I don't think we should -- we shouldn't settle for that. OK, but it might take patience.

I also think an interesting thing about grief is that there's a universal connection that we have with people that speak a lot of different languages, and we do, all over the world, and that is that we can -- we do think that we can understand and empathize with people in this case. And I think that they should -- I hope that they're comforted in knowing that the Americans are on their side.

BOLLING: Don't forget, these people, the Malaysian government said they would have more information for us today.

PERINO: Nothing.

BECKEL: Nothing. That's right.

"One More Thing" is up next.


BOLLING: Time for "One More Thing." Greg, you're up first.

GUTFELD: It's finally starting. Yes, I'm climbing into this tiny box.

BECKEL: Oh, cool.

GUTFELD: And I'm going across Texas to all the book stores. You can find out about where I'm going to be at on I'm going to start Thursday. Dana and I are going to be at the George W. Bush Library.
And we're going to do a talk there, and then I'm going to be hitting all these places. So

I was supposed to -- I was supposed to come back Monday, but my mother is not doing very well, so I'm going to be spending some extra time with her in California. And I should be back in a week or so. She's the inspiration for all I do. The books that I write are dedicated to her, and anyway, so I'm going to see her.

BOLLING: Very good.



All right. So we talked earlier about President Obama and Brussels.
So Brussels or bust. These are unbelievable numbers. Nine hundred people in his entourage. Forty-five vehicles, three cargo planes. Can someone -- Mark Nolan, is he the one who does this, right? -- can you tell us how much this is going to cost the American taxpayer? Does he really need 900 people? I'm not sure.

Dana, you're up next.

PERINO: Someone has to carry the bags.

BOLLING: Lost of bags.

PERINO: All right, I wanted to talk about a friend and mentor of mine, Harold Burson. He's 92 years old now. He's the founder of Burson- Marsteller, a global P.R. firm, and I used to work there for a short period of time. We've remained friends.

He has just donated, 68 years to the day after he began reporting on the Nuremberg trial -- he did every report for two years for the Armed Forces Network. That was the radio station that went out to all of our military. And he's just dedicated this -- donated it to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and you can actually hear him read about it at

It's really important to history, and Harold is a great guy. Had dinner with him last night. He was my date.

BOLLING: Very good. In my book (ph).

And, you're up.

TANTAROS: Actually, this is the white board for Greg's "Not Cool"
tour, "Texas or Bust." Really, 900 entourage, 45 vehicles, three cargo planes. That's not cool.

GUTFELD: You forgot the petting zoo.

PERINO: Someone has to carry the bags.

TANTAROS: And the petting zoo. How much does that cost?

OK, if you thought that it couldn't get any better than money shooting out of an ATM? Well, guess what? Now cupcakes are shooting out of ATMs all over America. They're coming to New York. They're already in Dallas, Atlanta, and Chicago.

It is Charles Nelson and his wife, who have founded Sprinkles Cupcakes, which are delicious, are putting these ATMs where you can get over ten different kinds of cupcakes, even in the middle of the night, and they even have doggy cupcakes for people...

PERINO: We're going there.

TANTAROS: Isn't that awesome?

BOLLING: My wife said that was the best idea she's had in a long time.

TANTAROS: Shoes would be the other. But we'll work it (ph).

BOLLING: Bob, you're up.

BECKEL: I want to report on the great state of Oklahoma. Now, I've been in Oklahoma. Some of the longest hours I've ever spent were in Oklahoma. And they're nice, too. They're wonderful people.

But Katie Francis of Oklahoma City won the Girl Scout award for the most number of boxes of cookies that could be sold, the Girl Scout cookies.
It was 18,107. Congratulations, Katie.

And I must say that, if you're in Oklahoma, you've got the kind of time to sell that many boxes of cookies, and you took the advantage of the time. And that's exactly what our executive director does, takes a lot of advantage of the time to bust my chops.

BOLLING: We're going to have to leave it right there. Don't forget to set your DVRs so you don't ever miss an episode of "The Five." We're going to see you back here tomorrow.

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.