Mixed reactions over swap of 5 Gitmo detainees for Sgt. Bergdahl

This is a rush transcript from "Media Buzz," June 2, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I need those handcuffs back by Friday.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: OK. I'll make sure --

GUTFELD: Hello, everyone. I'm Greg Gutfeld, along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, and she's an honoree Keebler elf, it's Dana Perino.

This is "The Five."


GUTFELD: It sounds like a Common Core math problem: Five high risks terrorists for one mysterious hostage. The Taliban called it a victory. But then, again, for them, so is a drunk goat under a blanket. Still, many are left scratching their heads over this trade and not just those with lice.

Now, we're all happy for the Bergdahl family, but what is the message, which is -- catch one of us, get five of yours back. And what else did we give them? We're telling with mobsters on mules, after all. And why these five specific guys? They weren't working in HR.

We've been told that Islamophobia only increases violence worldwide. But you can say the same thing about this. When some of these fiends get out, they will kill our men. The past proves this.

This release also reveals our president to be a pretty lousy poker player, telegraphing intentions even before entering the casino. What did he telegraph? That we're out of here, done, back to tackling the harsh realities of bullying.

It could be worse. Like Obama, the Taliban might have wanted everyone out of Gitmo. We're lucky they only got five.

So, how does America win from a trade like this? Hopefully, it's not a trade at all. In poker, it's a bluff. This exchange of live bodies should only be called a success if weeks from now, theirs end up dead. I'd call that a fair trade.

Kimberly, that's my suggestion and why won't they do this, if they are now in Qatar, which is I believe the country, why don't we just drone them? That would be hilarious.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: I'd like to think we're going to keep a close eye on their whereabouts and pick them off like fleas off a deserving dog, and rid the dog of the fleas. That's what I'm hoping, that we're smart enough to be able to figure that out, that these guys are not going to be able to comeback and hurt and harm our men and women that are serving.

So, that would be justice. So, let's keep an eye on that.

But in terms of the overall situation here. There's a lot at that we don't know. So I just want to say that I think we need to get all the information about what happens here, what happens under the circumstances of when he wandered off, what were the exact -- you know, the context before we kind of rush to judgment on this, something that they are going to do an investigation on.

They did an investigation prior, but having -- my sources spoke directly with the father, the father has accumulated, according to him, we don't know if what he is saying is true, significant information showing that his son was kidnapped and I think the other information I have is that this individual was kind of ostracized from his unit and was not well liked. Doesn't make any excuse for him wandering off, but I think he's going to have to answer to that six months after this reintegration takes place.

GUTFELD: Eric, Chuck Hagel says the deal saved his life. But "The Daily News" is calling it a Taliban victory. What do you think?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Here's what I think -- I think droning is out of the question. We negotiated with these guys. They are terrorists. We negotiated with terrorists. All that B.S. about we don't do that, we clearly do that.

So, I'm trying to figure out, are they -- the administration happy by the one or the five? I'm not really sure. Or is it the six jihadists that they let go? Because everyone you speak to, including the people who are in his unit said, he purposefully walked away from -- it was on a post, it was apparently a guard post when his shift ended, he came back and asked his commander if he could bring his gun with him and leave. The commander said no. So, he left his gun and took a compass and canteen and walked.

So, if that's the case, and if that is, and we've heard three separate people that served with him who said the same thing that he wandered off.

Here's the big question, though --

GUILFOYLE: What was the purpose and intention?

BOLLING: Before he did this now, this is really important, he emailed his parents with these quotes. Now, these aren't speculation. This is what we understand his parents to have been emailed from Bowe Bergdahl, quote, "I'm ashamed to be an American. The U.S. Army is the biggest joke in the world and the horror that is America is disgusting."

So, that man sends those notes to his parents, granted private emails and then walks off and then there's a deal negotiated for him? Who is the bigger fool here? Who's played for the fool, is it us or them? By the way, we got five back and we got one that is disgusted with America.

GUTFELD: But the point -- I mean, Dana, does it matter? He just spent five years. I can't imagine a hell worse than that. If he was disillusioned, unhappy, there are a lot of people in the military that are unhappy, obviously, does it matter about his intentions when he walked off five years ago at this point?

PERINO: I think to understand the full story, it does, and this is what I think -- these two things can be true and they are not at odds with one another. You can have compassion for Bergdahl himself and for his family, and you can also have compassion for those soldiers who lost their lives and their families who searched for him after he left, because even if he wasn't liked by them, they still searched for him, and six of them lost their lives.

In addition, I don't think it is unreasonable for the American people, including the Congress, to expect some more information from the White House, which in itself was in -- Susan Rice saying he was a hostage. Jay Carney today saying he was not. They seem to have not been aware of the Pentagon report in 2010. Or maybe they were and we just aren't.

I just -- there's a lot to be understood about this, including what happens to the rest of the people, terrorists being held at Gitmo. Because if you will release five under Qatar, and it's not that you're releasing them where they have to stay in jail in Qatar. They have to basically stay in Qatar, for a better -- or however you say it, I say Qatar, some people say Qatar, I don't know. Tomato, tomato, whatever, that place over there.

They only have to be there for one year. I'm sure we'll try to keep a close eye on them but as you suggested, the recidivism rate for terrorists leaving Gitmo, actually, there are almost sometimes more deadly after they left than they were the first time around.

GUTFELD: Bob, who got the better of the deal?

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: Well, first of all, let's put some things in context. United States military does not leave one of their own anywhere, whatever the circumstances, and they haven't. So --

GUTFELD: Well, we have left some people.

BECKEL: Well, in this case, somebody that you know that's alive and they went out there looking for him.

The other thing that we have to be careful here is we don't know -- people are pretty loose lipped here about condemning this guy. We don't know the situation. If he really did -- was a deserter, and they knew that, then he should be in jail awaiting the military court justice to deal with him but he's not. So, that's the second thing I would say.

And the third thing I will say about negotiating with terrorists. We are negotiating -- these are all terrorist states. These nation states are nothing but terrorists. I mean, they harbor these people. They do the rest -- so, we're not really negotiating with terrorists.

BOLLING: Can I stop you there?


BOLLING: What state, is -- what country does Taliban reside in? Because that's who we negotiated with.

BECKEL: Well, we negotiated through the Pakistanis, as far as I know, the Qatar.

PERINO: And we didn't even alert the Afghanis.

BOLLING: Here's my point -- yes, we did use the Qatar infrastructure to negotiate. But we're not negotiating with another state, we're negotiating with the enemy, with the terrorist group, the Taliban.

GUILFOYLE: Which is even worse.


BECKEL: Islamic terrorists pretty much control most of the countries in the Mideast.

BOLLING: Yes. But we're not negotiating with Iran or Iraq or --

BECKEL: If you were, you would be negotiating with Islamic terrorists.

GUTFELD: K.G.'s got a point.

GUILFOYLE: OK. But the problem is the optic of the situation are bad, left, right, and center. Bottom line is and we'll talk about it a little bit later, we don't even know if the proper protocol was followed.

One, he's an American. He should be brought back here regardless, to determine what exactly happened. And then, after this period of reintegration, they can deal with what exactly where his intention. I'm sure he's going to come back and say, I had no intention of deserting.

What I also know about him is that he was someone who was very, very into the Special Forces, really wanted to be a Navy SEAL. In fact, worked at the shooting range that the SEALs all shoot at and he was dismissed from that job, OK, as the caretaker here. So, this is someone who was very enamored with counterinsurgency, counterintelligence, special forces unit and also what I heard a little bit, like not happy with the unit that he was in, was trying to do some things on his own, perhaps that might be an explanation.

I don't know. I'm horrified that people died trying to look for him. If he was trying to go out on his own to do that, that's also inappropriate and not OK, but we don't know yet. But what I also don't like is how this whole thing went down.

As for his father, his father my source also told me was going to go over there to try to negotiate the release of his son on his own because he was so frustrated. The father with the long hair, the beard, advised that was a bad idea. The father was trying to learn the language to be able to go over there to communicate to save his son.

BECKEL: Let me ask you all a question. Let's assume for a moment he was a deserter. Should we not have gone after and tried to get him out?

BOLLING: Of course.

GUTFELD: I think we did try. I -- that's why people are dead.

BOLLING: We trade five high-level operatives --


BECKEL: Would you leave him there and have a United States soldier - -

BOLLING: No, I would continue to do what you were trying to do. Find him, drone them, negotiate, get it, but don't trade five dangerous -- it's like -- five of their top commanders back.

And Dana points out, forget the recidivism rate -- is there any question these guys are going to kill again?

BECKEL: If they had kidnapped General Petraeus, right, and they held him for five years --


PERINO: I'm not.

BECKEL: All right. Take any U.S. soldier --

PERINO: OK, here's a question that also has to be answered that's not clear yet and hopefully it will be which is that if it is true that attacks in that area increase with frequency and that there were even additional lives lost in America because we know the casualty rate goes up in 2010, what information, if any, either willfully or under duress did he provide to the enemy? That's something worth knowing.

BECKEL: Well, that's it. That's a leading question and putting that on the table suggests --

PERINO: Why is it not a reasonable question to find out?

BECKEL: You are taking a leap about an increase in violence and this guy wandering off a post?

PERINO: Is it not unreasonable to find out what the answer is? And I don't think he's a kid. He's a man. He joined the military.

BECKEL: There are procedures to find these things out and not in a round table like this.

GUILFOYLE: But the point is you are not supposed to wander off, good intentions or bad, because it jeopardizes the integrity and the safety of the unit which you served with --

BECKEL: I understand.

GUILFOYLE: -- which can cause lives. But regardless, maybe he paid his price, like you said, Greg.


GUILFOYLE: We don't know that.

BECKEL: That's something you can't do.

GUTFELD: The other thing, too, is, first, the game that the administration plays with language, not calling him a hostage, calling him a prisoner of war, it suggests that you only exchange prisoners of war when the war is over, but we're the only side that's saying the war is over.

BECKEL: That's not so.

GUTFELD: We're basically telegraphing that the war is over, but they're never going to stop killing us. We're calling them prisoners. We're exchanging prisoners of war.

BECKEL: We exchanged in Iraq --

GUILFOYLE: Look at the timing of this because we're pulling out. We're not going to leave him there and also, it just -- the whole thing is very suspect.

BECKEL: Is anyone else a little bit skeptical about the father with the beard? The father speaking Pashtun because he's afraid his son forgot English in five years of captivity? I get -- listen, I may be wrong, I'm pretty sure in five years I'm pretty sure I'm going to remember to speak English, even if I'm in captivity.

GUTFELD: He's argument will be --

BECKEL: What does the suspicion mean? He's got a beard, therefore he's pro-Islam --

BOLLING: No, he's speaking an Islamic language to his son --


GUILFOYLE: The dad was going to go over there and negotiate the release of his son.

BOLLING: Maybe I'm nuts, Bob. It's not adding up.

BECKEL: I think it's a rush to judgment or at least an illusion -- you are alluding to something that is absolutely unprovable.

BOLLING: If you didn't see your son for five years and you thought he was somewhere in a foreign country, whether you spoke a different language, would you try to learn that language because you thought you couldn't communicate with him?

BECKEL: To negotiate for his release, you probably.

BOLLING: No, he was already released.

GUTFELD: No, I think he will argue that it was a form of outreach I think is what he was going to say. But the one thing that did mention was the book, that's what got to me was the idea that there will be a book coming out.

BOLLING: Yes, a book deal --

PERINO: It's "Homeland," season 3.

GUTFELD: There you go. But what would you do if you were a father and you thought this could help?

GUILFOYLE: I would want to go over there and I would try to learn the language -- no one disputes the father is a highly intelligent individual, so is the son. The son was learning the three different languages in the area they were in. The whole thing is very suspicious and bizarre. But we have to find out all the facts first.

BECKEL: People who know the facts so far have not had this guy arrested, that's all you need to know.

BOLLING: Yes, they negotiated. They gave away prisoners to get him out.

PERINO: Also, we have a report of nondisclosure agreements so we can never know, which I don't think -- that's not going to be acceptable to anybody, bipartisan members of the Congress.

GUTFELD: OK, kids.

All right. We're not done. Next, did President Obama break the law by keeping Congress in the dark about the Bergdahl swap? Keep it right here on "The Five."


GUILFOYLE: This administration says it's committed to leaving no man behind. That's why it spent so much trying to rescue former POW Bowe Bergdahl. But what about the Americans killed in Benghazi, two were former Navy SEALs. The others weren't military members, but many want to know why they were left behind when there may have been time for them to be rescued.

We're going to talk about that in a moment, whether this administration broke the law with this unprecedented prisoner swap. But, first, thoughts on Benghazi.

So, Eric, there's some drawing the comparison and juxtaposing the two incidents and say how can you square the two together, to say that, hey, we didn't go in when we could have had time to intercede in Benghazi, we let four Americans die, however, we went to great lengths to secure the release of someone with somewhat of a questionable background, to say the least at this time?

BOLLING: Right. And let's be a little fair here. I think, there's probably no saving of the first two, Chris Stevens and his guard were probably gone before anyone in D.C. could do a darn about it. But, don't forget, there's somewhere around seven to eight hours between the first two deaths and the next two deaths, and we have plenty of assets in the area to go ahead and try and save them.

But we've decided, no let's take it -- let's play it safe. Let's keep it -- let's not -- and two more Americans died. So, there wasn't that sense of alarm.

There's an American sitting in a Mexican jail right now. There's not that sense of alarm. But we're going to trade five highly important Taliban members for one guy who may or may not have deserted. We don't even know. You can't square that circle, so to speak.


BOLLING: Can I just point one quick thing? We gave five high- ranking Taliban officials for one guy. About six weeks ago, there was a guy named al-Zawahiri who recommended that Taliban and al Qaeda members kidnap Americans and use them as barter for trading to get people back.

Does this not like, look, exactly what they're doing --

GUILFOYLE: Well, he's right into it.

BOLLING: So, why are we playing this game with them?

Stop negotiating with these idiots. They're going to keep doing it and we're putting Americans more at risk by doing this, by just -- for some reason, get one back and take a victory lap.

GUILFOYLE: Right. Well, this is exactly what they intended. They have been looking for quite some time, prior to this, to be able to secure, snatch and grab of an American soldier, to be able to achieve these exact results. That's why they are to gloating and cheerful about what happened here.

So, it's bad for the U.S. for sure and we still don't even know who it is we rescued, so to speak in terms of these facts of the situation.


GUTFELD: The only link I think you can draw between these two stories, the Benghazis and the release of Bergdahl is politics. "Rolling Stone" said that the potential release of this soldier would help an election. Likely, Democrats agreed, including Bob, that politically playing down Benghazi in 2012 helped win an election.

So, that's how it works here. Whatever is politically expedient is what is solved first.

GUILFOYLE: And we're not talking about leaving veterans to die with the V.A. scandal today, are we? We're talking about what happened here. So, it's also to move it off the page.

All right. Bob, your thoughts on this? And, Dana?

BECKEL: I don't talk about Benghazi.



GUILFOYLE: OK. And, Dana, I'm going to have you listen to a little bit sound here. This is Susan Rice on Bergdahl. Take a listen.


SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Sergeant Bergdahl simply wasn't a hostage. He was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.

He served the United States with honor and distinction.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Point blank, did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists for his release?

RICE: Candy, what we did was ensure that as always, the United States does not leave a man or a woman on the battlefield.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No longer can it be said that the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists?

RICE: I wouldn't put it that way, Candy. I wouldn't say that at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How would you put it?

RICE: Well, when we were in battles with terrorists and terrorists take an American prisoner, that prisoner still is a U.S. man or woman. We still have a sacred obligation to bring that person back.


GUILFOYLE: What do you think about the talking points here?

PERINO: Well, I think if anybody is going to be careful about something they say on the Sunday shows, it would be Susan Rice. And for good reason because either she -- well, I think she was given bad information, she repeated it willfully without even sort of skepticism when it came to Benghazi.

On this case, in particular, she says very clearly, that this -- that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Those are her words. The Pentagon report that was released in 2010 says the opposite. If I were here, I would have at least said, we are glad that he is now in safe hands. He's getting the proper medical attention that he needs. We're going to continue to keep you updated on it.

And I would not have done the Rose Garden ceremony and I think that America deserves a little more caution when it comes to whatever our new policy is, isn't a new policy?

I don't think that Candy Crowley was asking an unreasonable question. I think the White House should have had much better answers before putting the national security adviser on TV.

BECKEL: Whenever we negotiate with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq --

BOLLING: States, states, states, difference.

BECKEL: We are negotiating with terrorists. We're negotiating with terrorists.

BOLLING: But you're still negotiating with the state. When you negotiate with Taliban, you're literally --

BECKEL: You're negotiating with terrorists.


GUTFELD: Bob, you should be for fracking, and --


GUTFELD: And you should be for the pipeline.


GUTFELD: That's good. You should get your other liberals involved in that because then we don't have to negotiate with terrorists.

BECKEL: The sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia is negotiating with terrorists.

GUTFELD: And we should not rely on these guys for oil.

BECKEL: I agree with you.

GUTFELD: Hooray! So, you're going to be -- next block, you are going to be totally against these carbon taxes.


GUILFOYLE: Exactly. That one is coming.

PERINO: That's the next block.

GUILFOYLE: OK. Let's get a little bit of sound in here which I think is interesting, because you know that I love the law, right? So I hope you do, too, at home, because we're going to tackle this question, as whether or not this was illegal that the White House did, this administration, or is this some -- many are saying on the Hill, that this was a violation of the law, that this was improper procedure and protocol that was followed. Take a listen to Jonathan Turley being interviewed earlier.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jonathan, I want to start with you. Did the White House violate federal law?

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: They did. I don't think that the White House is seriously arguing that they're not violating federal law. And to make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law that the president has been accused of.

When this law went to the president, he used a signing statement, which if you recall as a senator, he used one in this circumstance and said, I'm going to sign this, but I actually think that that notice requirement is unconstitutional.


GUILFOYLE: OK. So, keep in mind, Jonathan Turley is a liberal professor. Bob, you hear that word.

Dana, what do you make of it?

PERINO: Well, I think -- what I like Turley is that he just calls them as he sees them, as he understands the law. And that's what he was saying.

Here's the thing, though, believe it or not, I actually agree with the president. I believe in the power of the executive. I can understand why Congress is frustrated.

I also understand that Jay Carney last year said under no circumstance would any prisoner release happen without consulting Congress. They did not consult Congress and I think that the senators are right to raise the question just as I would have expected and they did expect Senators Clinton and Obama, when they were in the U.S. Senate, to question things that President George W. Bush did, especially when it came to signing statements. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

The amount of front page real estate given to President Bush's signing statements, compared to the fake outrage that now that Democrats apparently don't seem to have, they can't just muster it up, because they're wanting to defend President Obama. If there was some consistency, maybe the American people wouldn't be disappointed with their government.

BECKEL: But it is fair to say that Bush did sign more signing statements.

PERINO: The point is not the signing statement. The point of, they said they would not do it. They said they would -- Bob, that's just baloney.

BECKEL: Why? Why is that baloney?

PERINO: I can't even argue with --

BECKEL: I happen to agree with you. Listen, I think Turley is probably right. They probably went right on the edge, or over the line, but under the Wars Power Act --


BOLLING: What was the rush?

BECKEL: What was the rush to what?

BOLLING: Well, if the law is -- Congress needs 30 days --

GUILFOYLE: They are claiming his health is. That's what they said.

BOLLING: OK. So, his health was in such bad shape and as we find out, apparently, he's pretty darn good. In fact, he does speak English, too.

But the question, what's the rush? Thirty more days -- it's five years, 30 more days, giving Congress abiding by the law, giving Congress the heads-up, I think they had like four or five days also.


PERINO: This morning, "Politico" had a story that said congressional and White House relations have never been better. That's laughable.


GUTFELD: But I still go back, I'm interested in how the media will approach this and when will there be a book deal and will this guy, once he's back, become a heroic critic of American hawkishness. And he'll be -- will he end up being a tool for people who aren't fans of our American exceptionalism?

Because I always get the feeling, when these things happen, the media is a victim of Stockholm syndrome. They always side with the people that hate us. And this might end up being another part of that.


BECKEL: One thing I'd say about signing statements. Signing statements are used by presidents in case those laws are challenged in courts and they can say, here's where I disagreed and then, if it goes to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could make that decision.

PERINO: It would be nice to have that kind of reasonable attitude in 2005 to 2008. But it did not exist on the Democratic side. And Clinton and Obama were leading the charge.


GUILFOYLE: There you go. I'm leading it right there, cut off. Shut it down right there.

Check out "THE KELLY FILE" tonight. Megyn is going to talk to two soldiers who served with Bergdahl at the time he went missing. And that's at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, so you can decide for yourself.

And coming up, President Barack Obama is bypassing Congress again. This time, to take a big swing at coal. Eric has the details, next.


BOLLING: Any of you remember when President Obama -- I really should pick my own music.

PERINO: That was horrible.

BOLLING: I really should pick my own music. I take a day off and look what happens. Remember when he said this, Obama?


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.


BOLLING: He promised electricity rates would skyrocket, and he's keeping that promise. His EPA unveiled new regulations today mandating 90 percent in carbon emissions at coal-fired power plants, despite the fact that that will cost nearly a quarter million jobs per year and force plants across the country to close. The Chamber of Commerce is predicting the rules could lead to a spike in electricity prices to the tune of $17 billion the next 16 years.

And oh, by the way, the president is bypassing Congress yet again with his pen.

Bring it around, Bob, I want your response to this, because we made some claims there. Jobs, prices up.

BECKEL: I'm not sure where your figures came from.

BOLLING: Chamber of Commerce.

BECKEL: OK. That's a good source.

The -- let me put it this way. Does he have the right under the law to do it? Yes. I would have liked to have seen him say that, while we do this simultaneously, we're going to approve the construction of nuclear power plants that would have been -- 18 percent of our energy comes from coal.

If we could take 18 percent of our energy and get it into nuclear power, which we should have done years ago, there's still time under this change of regulations, that if we could do away with coal and change it with nuclear energy, we'd be much better off.

BOLLING: If we could.

PERINO: The Democrats are anti-coal. They don't want coal jobs.

BECKEL: I don't want anything that pollutes -- they could go work for a nuclear power plant.

BOLLING: So can we also understand that you can't get a nuclear power plant up and running in a 5- or a 10-year period, that sometimes it takes 20-plus years? In the meantime...

GUILFOYLE: In the meantime, take up knitting.

BOLLING: Go ahead. Go. Prices up in the sky.

GUILFOYLE: Absolutely. And what bothers me is that we could really be turning around this economy if we wouldn't be so anti-business and so heavy with regulation. We should open up federal lands for more exploration so that we can attain some dominance and prominence in the energy field, instead of being so dependent and weak, which seems to be the preferred position of this current way of thinking. And I think it's problematic. But all I can see are the dollar signs of the lost tax revenues and the jobs that could be had by Americans if we would do this.

BECKEL: You go to Yellowstone National Park or Sequoia National Park?

GUILFOYLE: Do I want to explore there?


GUILFOYLE: In a different way.

BECKEL: I see.

GUTFELD: I love the fact coal is used to burn -- I mean, coal is burned to create electricity. What are all of those people with Priuses going to do? The electric cars that exist because of coal?

Look, Obama's legacy is always going to be about coercion. Where there's an EPA bypassing Congress or Obama care with having made into a law, or the IRS targeting people. The White House is the most invasive tool since the colonoscopy. And he's running a country right now like it's a local arts college. Who provides -- who's going to provide the electricity for your iPad or your Prius? Lightning? Are you going to have lightning striking the machine?

GUILFOYLE: They don't get coal.

BOLLING: What you can do is you can start using more oil and natural gas to fire your plants, but then the price of your gasoline goes up.

GUILFOYLE: You can put a solar panel on your backpack.

BOLLING: Dana -- you have two choices, two topics. Do you want to talk about the China doubled carbon emissions in the U.S. or do you want to talk about the political ramifications of specifically Democrats running from this in coal states, like...

PERINO: I want to talk about it all, because I love this topic. In the United States, since 1990, we have reduced our carbon dioxide emissions to about 1990 levels at this point. So economic growth actually means that you can have a cleaner environment.

What I think that they are trying to do now is try to take an old law, the Clean Air Act, which worked very well for pollutants that caused asthma and stuff like that, and then apply it to climate change, and it actually can't work because the technology doesn't exist.

Also if it's a global problem, you're right: China has doubled their emissions, including India, Latin America, including Brazil. To what end do the Democrats want to do this? In all those states, one of the reasons I pressed Bob on that question about coal because coal matters a lot...

GUILFOYLE: Sure does.

PERINO: ... to our economy. And if you want to grow the economy, which I think President Obama says he wants to do, you are going to need more energy. So I'm for this. I'm for everything to have it on the table.

I will tell you this, though: based on the EPA's own predictions, OK, a complete shutdown of U.S. coal-fired power plants is projected to reduce the average global temperature by about one-twentieth of a degree. And to reduce sea level by about one-twenty-fifth of an inch. So to what end are we doing this?

GUILFOYLE: Dana came to play today. I like that.

GUTFELD: The end -- the end was to exaggerate and manipulate data about climate change in order to get into our wallets.

But you've got to do this one last thing. Look around the world. The only alternative to coal for millions of people is death. For every country that figures out how to use coal, they bring themselves out of poverty. And there's billions of people that don't have any coal that are burning fuels that are deadly like feces. We sit here on our high horse. We've got our coal; we've got our electricity. There are people out there that would die for a smidgen of our luck.

BECKEL: So you're saying, so I understand this -- so It doesn't matter, unless the rest of the world goes along, we can just go right ahead and do what we want to do?

PERINO: Well, if it's not going to solve the problem, and we could actually grow our economy so that we can help other people actually not die a horrible death.

GUTFELD: I'm speaking globally, not locally, Bob.

BECKEL: That's what I'm saying. Globally. Globally.

GUTFELD: And global is coal.

BOLLING: Senate Democrats in tight races in West Virginia, Montana, Kentucky and even -- it's not coal, but it's energy -- Alaska and Louisiana are pushing far away from the president on this one.

PERINO: And the White House told them they could. The White House said we understand it's politics. Well, actually, we understand it's politics, as well. Tom Steyer, the big billionaire in California, wants this bill. The president rushes it back. He was going to announce it, and then he didn't. I think that's telling.

BOLLING: We're going to leave it there.

Next, Mike Bloomberg takes on liberal McCarthyism at his own alma mater, Harvard. Hah-vahd. He also takes down other universities trying to silence opposing voices on campus. They do that. Coming up.


PERINO: We've been telling you about liberal intolerance on college campuses this graduation season. They have silenced voices like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condoleezza Rice.

But Michael Bloomberg got an invite to speak at Harvard's commencement, and some people may have been a little surprised when they heard this.


MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Today, on many college campuses it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas, even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species.

This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw, or have their invitations rescinded, after protests from students and, to me, shockingly from senior faculty and administrators who should know better. Liberals silenced a voice, and they denied an honorary degree to individuals that they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage, and we must not let it continue.


PERINO: So universities used to be a place where you went to open your mind, and it seems like it's become to a place where you go to narrow it.

Greg, I want to ask you this: According to the FEC -- that's the Federal Election Commission...

GUTFELD: I'm aware.

PERINO: ... 96 percent of all campaign contributions from Ivy League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama. Do you think -- are you surprised?

GUTFELD: That's the point. The students aren't creating this. It's trickling down from the gurus of garbage. The only entity less tolerant than the teacher's lounge is the Taliban, and the Taliban actually smells better.

PERINO: And it negotiates.

GUTFELD: You've got to ask. Why they -- why are they scared of debate? Because they know that they points that they're making, which have been coddled on the campus, are extremely weak. They're fragile.

So the only way to strengthen an argument is through a debate. A debate is like the gym for an argument, which is why these students exit these campuses intellectually flabby. Because none of their beliefs are actually put to any test at all. So when they get in the real world, they crush like fragile little bugs.

PERINO: So true. Then they complain to H.R. about being bullied all the time.

GUTFELD: Exactly.

PERINO: I don't know anybody like that.

Eric, I want to ask you today. A report came out that 33 percent of people 18 to 24 are now living with their parents.

BOLLING: I saw that.

PERINO: So this is right after college, and fully a third are still living with their parents.

BOLLING: That's scary.

PERINO: Bad news?

BOLLING: You know, that was a great speech, and he went on, Bloomberg continued on and actually cited that 96 or 97 percent not only -- yes, of faculty members who donate to Democrats. We literally pointed out where's the open-mindedness in that? Where's the -- seeing both sides of the argument in that? He pushed back on it. You have to tip your hat to him. But I've got to tell you, some of the people in the stand, they don't look very happy.

PERINO: They didn't look very happy.

BOLLING: They were -- he wasn't going to be a popular guy at drinks after -- after the graduation.

PERINO: That was the interesting thing, Bob. The content of that speech, which was a commencement speech, instead of being sort of one -- I guess it was a direct challenge to the faculty rather than just encouraging for the students.

BECKEL: Well, I think the faculty point that he made was right on the money. I mean, there -- because there are a very small percentage of them that are not -- that are not conservative.

But let me say this, that to indict all liberal students and say that all liberals, a very small fraction of liberals on these campuses, students protested these people. I said from the beginning that I thought they never rescind or asked to be out of a speech like that. They should do it. If they get booed by a few people, but they should do it.

BECKEL: That's interesting.

Kimberly, will it matter to you -- when Ronan is ready to go to college, many, many years from now, will it matter to you if a particular campus, if a university, is open-minded or not?

GUILFOYLE: Yes. But apparently he's only looking for one that he can walk to from the apartment he said. Never leaving to -- yes, but I want him to go to school that has some free thinking from both sides. From all different viewpoints.

What bothers me now is that the comment that you made is so telling, because it has become a place where, yes, you're supposed to, like, narrow your mind. It's like putting a pair of tight Spanks over your head when you go college now. And it just like cuts off the blood flow and the thinking. You just become this, like, programmed robot. I don't want that.

PERINO: What do you think about that, Bob? That pulling the...

BECKEL: No, it's not that. It's always curious to me why is it that conservatives don't go into teaching?

GUTFELD: Because it's impossible.

PERINO: Because those who can do and those who can't -- that's a think I heard from a long time ago.

BECKEL: Why don't they go into it and try to rectify?

PERINO: You know, you're unwelcome. Maybe that's it. People do like...

BECKEL: Unwelcome at a lot of places. I'm unwelcome at this table.

PERINO: No, we love having you.

GUILFOYLE: That is not true. We love you. Please. You have so many job perks.

BECKEL: I think conservatives -- they make a big stink about this, but they don't have the courage to go to school and teach.

GUILFOYLE: All right.

PERINO: OK. Wow, I would say it has something to do with tenure and unions. But anyway, we'll talk about that more in the break.

More ahead: two big restaurant chains are telling customers they can't pack heat while they eat. Bob is going to tell you which ones next.


BECKEL: A few weeks ago, members of the gun rights group Carry Open Texas walked into an area Chili's restaurant carrying assault rifles. These wingnuts have also tried this at Chipotle and Sonic, prompting responses from the food chains asking customers not to bring guns into their stores.

These guys are so out there, even the NRA is pleading with this group to stop this type of behavior. Congratulations, NRA. I wonder if (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is going to leave his guns when he goes into a Chipotle.

OK, what do you think, good idea or bad idea?

BOLLING: Well, here's the deal. It's Second Amendment rights versus property rights, so the gun owners have a right to do it, because by right they do. In these states, they're allowed to. But they also -- business owners have a right to say, "Stay out of our establishment if you're going to brandish an open carry." You can still conceal a carry.

I think you leave it up to the franchisees and let a businessman decide, in his neighborhood, if this is a smart thing to do or not a smart thing to do. But I don't think any of these, with the exception of Chipotle, to be wrong.

GUILFOYLE: Chipotle.

BOLLING: Yes, I don't think the other ones have said it's a blanket- wide decision.

GUILFOYLE: Blanket rule, right.

BECKEL: Dana, what do you think?

PERINO: I only take Tums into Chipotle. If you've eaten there, you know what I'm saying.

BECKEL: Greg, let's go.

GUILFOYLE: You and Greg don't like that one sauce.

BECKEL: Let's go, let's go. We've got 30 seconds.

GUTFELD: None of these proclamations will make anybody any safer. It's this hashtag symbolism signaling that makes the person who's safe feel better. One variable that reduces gun violence is the time it takes for a second gun to get to an incident. So this does no good.

GUILFOYLE: Mm-mm. I love red beans and rice and flat bread.

BECKEL: What about it? Let's go. Let's go. Let's go.

GUILFOYLE: That's all I got!

BECKEL: OK. All I can say is I hope a lot more restaurants do it and I don't see no reason to have a gun in a restaurant is qoing to stop anything. "One More Thing" is up next.

GUTFELD: Don't come to this building then.



GUTFELD: Time for "One More Thing." I'll go first. When someone dies, certain rituals go away, too, rituals you rarely notice until they are severed. When I would leave home from visiting my Mom, she would ask me to call her the moment if I landed, always worried if those big planes would make it across the sky. Last night, I landed here in New York, and the reflex to whip out the phone and make that call was frozen by realization that no one would pick up on the other end, ever.

Humans create ways to ease suffering, and perhaps their universal nature speaks to a truth unseen, rather than just a psychological trick. So maybe I don't have to call her anymore, because she's here with me.

BECKEL: I agree with you.


GUILFOYLE: I'm very sad about the passing of your mother. What a wonderful spirited, incredible woman. She did a great job with you, too.

GUTFELD: Don't make me cry.

GUILFOYLE: I know, but I'm ready to cry, so let's do it together.. We have the passing of another woman, 88 years of age. Alice, you remember her from "The Brady Bunch." She was an Emmy-Award-winning actress, Ann B. Davis. And she passed away in Texas, unfortunately from a fall in her home.

She has been quoted as saying that she considered her ordinary look an asset. I like this. She said, "I know at least a couple hundred glamour gals who are starving in this town." She told the "Los Angeles Times" in 1955 (ph). And that was when the show had -- show actually ran for five years, believe it or not. A lot of reruns. She said, "I would rather be myself and eating." Right?

GUTFELD: That's why she dated Sam the butcher.

PERINO: I like it. So I want to give a shout out to Bret Baier who has a new book out. It's called "Special Heart." He's going to be on O'Reilly tonight. This is a book about his son.

His son had congenital heart disease. He had surgery when he was only 1 year old. He survived and now he's a thriving little boy. He's had several surgeries since. Bret writes about the whole ordeal, and that 1 in 100 children born have some type of congenital heart defect.

His name is Paul Baer -- isn't that cute? And I remember when he came in the day before, in the Oval Office, to see President Bush, right before he went into surgery.

Every cent of this book goes to charities to help children with heart disease. So you can see me on "Special Report" tonight, because Bret's here in town. And you can see him on O'Reilly, as well.

GUILFOYLE: And buy his book.

PERINO: Well, definitely buy the book. Of course you have to buy the book. If not just for the pictures; they're fabulous.


BECKEL: Do buy the book.

The picture I'm about to show you is my beautiful, lovely daughter, MacKenzie, and her date at her -- at her prom, her senior prom. And it's been commented to me several times, how can somebody that beautiful come from me? Well, she did, in fact, and it may have just been the luck of the draw, but I love her very much. She's on her way to Colorado to go to college, and she is a delightful young lady.

GUILFOYLE: And you're going to her graduation ceremony this week.

BECKEL: Going to her graduation.

GUILFOYLE: God bless you.

BOLLING: She looks beautiful, Bob.


BOLLING: Beautiful.

OK. So I was going to talk about Snapchat, EB2016, but instead, let's do this. What I learned today: Bob Beckel, pro-fracking, pro-life, anti- radical-Islamist, anti-liberal-academia-activism. My friend, I would like to officially welcome you into the Conservative Party. Welcome, welcome. What took you so long?

BECKEL: No, no. Please don't. No, no.

GUILFOYLE: "The Daily Show" thinks so, too.

PERINO: Ask him about his taxes, too.

GUTFELD: Yes. He's very conservative with his taxes.

All right. Don't forget to set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "The Five." We'll be 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.