This is a rush transcript from "The Five," July 31, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: This is the Fox News alert. Breaking at this hour, bombshell audio -- for the first time ever, you're about to hear former President Bill Clinton in his own words admit he had the kill shot on Usama bin Laden. Remarks made a mere 10 hours before terror struck the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON ON SEPT. 10, 2001: And I'm just saying, you know, if I were Usama bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him, and I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have gotten, I could have killed him, but I would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so, I didn't do it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BOLLING: That newly released audio discovered by our news partner Sky News, the audio was recorded on September 10th, 2001. The first time we're hearing, A, Clinton admitted to having bin Laden, and, B, why he let the terrorist go.
This is absolutely stunning.
Ands, let's take it around the table. Kick it off. He let him go.
ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: I don't think this is that stunning. I don't. Bill Clinton we know could have gotten Usama bin Laden when he was president two times. The fact that he's being thoughtful about this, and saying, I could have destroyed that small town in Kandahar and killed 300 people -- I think these are the tough decisions that presidents make.
I also know that Bill Clinton challenged the CIA on the report that they were giving about, is this an exaggerating picture of Usama bin Laden? Isn't that what presidents are supposed to do?
Look, I think Bill Clinton was one of the worst presidents when it came to foreign policy, OK? He gave the Pakistanis the nuke. I know, this is shocking, I'm not going to beat up Bill Clinton on this one. But I don't see what is so terrible here with what Bill Clinton said.
BOLLING: I will. I'll tell you what's so terrible about it. We are at war. We had a terrorist who was hell-bent on killing Americans, wiping out not only Israel, but also wiping out Western civilization.
He had the kill shot. He didn't take it because he was worried about some villagers who frankly would have been collateral damage. We lost3,000 Americans the very next morning. Things may have been different.
Are you --
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Well, that's the interesting thing. First of all, imagine if he had, if he had taken UBL out. Then there would be no 9/11. Then his decision to take UBL out would not be lauded, because there would be no evidence that he prevented 9/11, because you can't prove that something didn't happen.
Therefore, it is almost a nonsensical argument. I will say this -- Hillary Clinton got a child rapist off. Bill Clinton let a terrorist who caused 9/11 go. What's next? Are they going to spring (ph) Charles Manson?
It's a joke. I don't -- I cannot condemn Clinton for this other than that he likes to tell stories. And this is what happens when you tell stories. Sometimes the stories come back and bite you in the butt.
DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: And sometimes the stories get exaggerated. So, I spent half of today trying to remember why I didn't think this was news. And trying to figure out, you know, I had heard this before, but I think it was probably because somewhere in the White House, I had heard it over time. And something we talked about, because I think as those points are made, it wasn't all that relevant.
But what I always understood when I tried to confirm it today, I'm not saying that I -- I didn't talk to the CIA, OK, but Usama bin Laden at the time wasn't in the town. He was in a camp. So, when Bill Clinton said he would have killed all those women and children, unless he was planning on a carpet bomb, like a huge area, that actually wasn't going to happen.
So, it could be the case of a story gets better the more you tell it.
GUTFELD: Maybe he should stop telling it.
PERINO: A lot of near misses, almost, looking back, I think what we lack the most was intel, coordination, and imagination. And I think the real worry should be that the 9/11 Commission came out just last week with its first report in a decade and said that we are at risk of being as complacent as we were right before 9/11. On September 10th when Bill Clinton made these statements.
BOLLING: And that's the relevant point for me there. He made those statements 10 hours before the terror attacks happened.
Juan, it looks like I'm going to be the only one at the table that finds this absolutely astounding that hours before he killed 3,000 people, we had a shot at him and we turned it down. I mean, we understood that in the past.
PERINO: No, he didn't have --
BOLLING: We didn't hear bill Clinton say it.
PERINO: But he didn't say he was able to take him out right before, like 10 hours before.
TANTAROS: That's right.
BOLLING: Ten hours before the 9/11 happened. He said he had a shot.
JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Yes, he had obviously many moons before.
WILLIAMS: But I think the key here is in retrospect, it's just a better irony, because you would think we would have saved 3,000 lives. So, in that sense, I'm with you. You say, gosh, we should have really emphasized getting bin Laden much earlier.
And, you know, the way I've heard this from the 9/11 Commission people, who have said this to me, that there was the briefing that President Bush had up in Crawford. They said to him there's a memo -- bin Laden intent on using airplanes to attack. Why didn't we put the dots together, why didn't we do more?
So, I think, you know, you think, yes, if we had just -- if Clinton had just acted when he acted, you think about all these things, Eric. But it's not that everybody is culpable and a bad person for not having done
it. It's just that, as you heard from Bill Clinton, he made a decision.
GUTFELD: Yes. And the other thing, too, is -- I mean, a lot of people know how evil bin Laden was. A lot of people never heard of him until 9/11.
But the thing is, you know this story that he tells, what the lesson is, the lesson supports drones because you kill -- a drone is designed to kill a terrorist every chance you get. So, every time you send a drone, you're possibly preventing a 9/11.
So, the consequences of that are the collateral damage of the innocent. But the knowledge that you might have killed another bin Laden will bring you no accolades because you can't prove a negative.
BOLLING: Can I just throw two things out there? I was literally in the building in 1993 when the World Trade Center blew up. The first time they tried to blow up New York City. Then, there was the embassy bombing in 1998.
My point is, yes, would it have changed the course of history? I think it might have when he had taken bin Laden out when he had his point -- he had his chance. But this is the first time you hear a president talking about, I had the shot, and laughing it off, Dana, right?
BOLLING: I don't know. Listen --
TANTAROS: We knew Bill Clinton had him twice and didn't take the shot. It is interesting to hear Bill Clinton tell a story about having the shot and not taking it, and the ironic part is that happened, what, 10 hours before 9/11. So that is, I think, what's so fascinating about this.
I can't ding Clinton, though, on this, because when you look and read back, the beginning of the Bush administration, they did not look at OBL the way they did towards a post-9/11 world. Usama bin Laden, even though the CIA was talking about him, was not the figure that he is today. OK? A lot of administrations, Bill Clinton, they missed him. They did.
And we can do hindsight and rear-view mirror, but it looks like Bill Clinton, he shouldn't have laughed in that tape. But he was being very thoughtful about how he handled it. That's what presidents do, they make tough decisions.
The problem I have now is we have a president who seems weary of
making tough decisions.
WILLIAMS: OK, there we go. But, look, I'm just saying, remember -- let's put this in historical context. You had the bombings in Tanzania. You had the bombings in Kenya during Clinton's watch. After that time, Clinton does pursue bin Laden. But he misses him. And he has the opportunity for a shot.
BOLLING: Did he miss (ph) someone?
WILLIAMS: Yes, he did.
BOLLING: Or did he choose not to take the shot?
WILLIAMS: No, he took shots. He took shots before.
BOLLING: He said I didn't take the shot because I didn't want to kill 300 people.
WILLIAMS: No, he's talking specifically about that moment in Kandahar. But the reality is, he was -- not only that, he was giving aid to the Pakistani secret service to try to find bin Laden at that point.
So, it wasn't that he was not doing anything.
PERINO: I also think that whoever would have been in office at the time in 1999, say, Joe Blow, I think logistically and politically it would have been very difficult for them to have carried it out. Logistically, because it's such a huge area, like hard to check, and the other reason, this is both logistically and politically, there wasn't a coalition of people against the war on terror at the time. I think it would have been hard for him to do politically not only with our Congress but certainly in the region.
BOLLING: OK --
GUTFELD: And the thing is, to Juan's point, you know what? President Obama might have killed 15 or 20 bin Ladens already with drones. We'll never know.
BOLLING: Listen, now I know what Bob feels like around the table.
GUTFELD: I don't think anybody's disagreeing with you.
BOLLING: No, but I find it really outrageous. I think it's crazy that he --
GUTFELD: Well, we find it tragic. I don't think it's outrageous. It's tragic.
BOLLING: OK, different adjective.
All right. But -- let me see if you find this outrageous, really, really disturbing video. Check out Mohammad Abut Salha (ph), a 22-year-old Florida man who blew himself up in a suicide bombing in Syria just weeks ago. Salha is believed to be the first American suicide jihadist.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MONER MOHAMMAD ABU-SALHA, U.S.-BORN SUICIDE BOMBER: You think you're safe where you are in America? Or Britain? Or Indonesia? You think you are safe?
You are not safe. Those people who died on 9/11 doesn't justify. When the Americans were back in Iraq, before 9/11.
You think that you killed Usama bin Laden. That means nothing. You sent him to paradise.
You think that you have won? You have never won. We are coming for you. Mark my words.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: OK. Now, here's the scary part. Before blowing himself up, Salha returned to U.S. for months after receiving training in Syria. What were the signs? More importantly, will there be more? And will the next one be on our soil? How about this one?
GUTFELD: What? Well, this is, A, this shows how religious extremism offers a path to losers. Satisfied winners don't choose a death cult, only losers do. It's clear that guy is a loser.
The other thing is, I mean, we talk about signs and stuff -- he was definitely communicating with somebody in the United States to somebody outside the United States. That's what spying is all about.
Snowden, you can credit him for tipping these guys off. Now these guys know they're being spied on.
BOLLING: OK. Dana, does this scare you, we see 22-year-old Florida guy --
PERINO: Remember, we were talking about the foreign fighters who are being trained in Syria. I was looking at Stratfor and I have to give credit to Scott Stewart who wrote a great piece on that Web site, about the whole phenomenon of foreign fighters, and trying to put it in context for people like me who wanted to understand it better.
So, the estimates are between -- around in the low thousands. There are foreign fighters who have been trained in Syria. They go there because they want to fight. And like this guy, they had jihad on the brain. But they had Western passports, so they can travel out of there. It's not that easy to get in and out of Syria at the moment, but it can be done.
Often, they're trained not necessarily in blowing themselves up. It's actually more hand-to-hand combat to fight with them. But I think the intel point is very important. I worry it's only a matter of time. I imagine if the CIA director, if there's anything that keeps him up at night, it is somebody like this.
WILLIAMS: Yes. This is what I hear all the time. Right now, the big threat is that there are so many Americans, people with American passports -- by the way, this thing about him eating his passports, what is that guy?
He's a loon.
WILLIAMS: You said he's a loser. He's a loon. Anyway --
GUTFELD: And he's culturally appropriating.
But the idea is that they go over and they say, you know, I have some loyalties to one side or another in the Syrian conflict, or they're in Iraq, or they're in Sudan. And all of a sudden, they have American passports. You're not sure where they are overseas. Then they come back.
What's interesting to this story to me is, you know, he didn't do anything here in the United States. He's a suicide bomber. He could have done something here. Well, thank God.
BOLLING: He said it was too difficult for him to get here. So, he had to go --
TANTAROS: There's no question he didn't do it here and did it over there because it's far easier to do it over there, which is a good sign.
But I agree with Dana, it's only a matter of time before they hit us.
I'm sure there are plenty of terrorists plotting to kill us right now. The problem is, we have a president that has proclaimed on a national holiday in the United States that we're not at war with Islam. We have a president who's gutting our defense budget to pay for Obama phones. We've got an administration right now that does not go after Hamas for being a terrorist organization. In fact, the opposite, as the spokeswoman at the Department of State legitimatized their position, and almost -- the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, explained away that.
So, we're screwed. We're in big trouble. It's just a matter of time.
WILLIAMS: You know what I think, though? It's amazing that we
haven't been attacked.
PERINO: But I think it's credit to the men and women in our intel, and also to law enforcement, because once they had the Patriot Act that broke down the wall between intel and FBI sharing information, they were able to coordinate a lot better. So, they disrupted a lot of attacks. The big ones.
It's these little ones that might not cause the catastrophic damage that we saw huge terrorist attacks, but they could cause a psychological
damage to the nation, that do irreparable harm us.
BOLLING: Final thought?
GUTFELD: Yes. And to tease for the next segment, not only does it call for enhanced military and droning and a spy network that we can trust,
but impenetrable border.
BOLLING: There you go.
Next on THE FIVE, Dana has an update on the drama on the Hill today. The House GOP pulled the vote on their own border bill.
And later, a pretty surprising comment from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about her male colleagues when it comes to women.
PERINO: Crisis at the border is not letting up. But Congress may be close to giving up on legislation to address it. Earlier today, Republicans in the House pulled their own $659 million border bill after leadership realized they didn't have the votes to pass it.
Speaker Boehner had hoped a provision in the bill that would block President Obama from expanding deportation relief to millions of illegals would sway the more conservative members of his caucus. But that obviously didn't happen, and now, the leadership says they will call their members back from a five-week recess when they have the votes they need.
Take a look at this sound bite. This is the new first day on the job, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy speaking on the House floor when all this happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF>, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: I want to advise all members that additional votes are possible today. I am hopeful that by late this afternoon, we'll be able to notify the time of it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The house will be in order.
MCCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I yield back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: That kind of action in the House, let me give you one poll, the "AP" poll asking, do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's handling of immigration, 68 percent disapprove.
So, Andrea, let me ask you something. Even though it looks like the Congress can't get anything done, does it actually look like the Congress is doing the will of the people by not acting?
TANTAROS: I don't know about that. It was pretty disorganized on Capitol Hill today. It was very embarrassing. Kevin McCarthy used to be the whip, the man that you saw. Congressman Scalise is now the whip. So, that's what you're supposed to do, count the votes today.
PERINO: Before you call the vote?
TANTAROS: Before you call the vote, you know you have the votes. They didn't have the votes. So, that's pretty embarrassing.
If I were in charge right now, I would get a bill together that I know they have the votes for to strictly close the border, period, end of story, because I'm thinking politically right now. President Obama is not going to sign any bill. It's very unlikely that Harry Reid would bring anything to the floor that the House Republican majority had crafted.
However, if they can't get President Obama to support this, and seal the border, they have to crash this down on the heads of Senate Democrats who are in vulnerable seats. That's why I think -- and they should have been doing this for months, crafting bills strictly on closing the border, sending those bills to the Senate, get whoever's running against these vulnerable Senate Democrats to ask them, do you support the House bill to close the border and put them on record and notice that they are not supporting a bill to close the border. Because the polling, I believe, Dana, is not in favor of what the president's doing. It is working against him.
So, Republicans have public opinion on their side, but they can't get their act together.
PERINO: Eric, do you think they should just pass something on the House side to get it into conference so they can then actually work out a compromise?
BOLLING: Can I throw an alternative theory in here?
BOLLING: Maybe they know exactly what they're doing. Maybe they're going on vacation for five weeks starting tomorrow. And if this bill doesn't get voted on now, they can talk about it for five weeks when they're back in district. They can come back and say, this is what's going to be the hot topic.
At 68 percent disapproval rating for the president, on immigration, you want to extend this as long as you possibly can. Play this game out. We're winning, let's play this out.
If they do go to a vote, send it to the House and Harry Reid sits on it, game over. At least this chapter of the game. I don't know, maybe just a way --
TANTAROS: Why not have -- I wouldn't understand why wouldn't you give the Republican members covered next to an aye vote --
PERINO: Chance to vote.
TANTAROS: -- that they can take back to their constituents August recess, and say, look, I tried to close the borders?
BOLLING: They might still get that bill that they can --
TANTAROS: It's better to send them back with that vote.
PERINO: And they're also starting to get traction to say we pass things and the Senate doesn't because Harry Reid blocks everything that we do.
Juan, let me ask you. The president thinks he has the moral high ground here. He's not going on his vacation until August 9th. So, he's got another week to try to persuade the American people. But a 68 percent disapproval in the "AP" poll has got to be very challenging for a White House to try to come back from.
WILLIAMS: Right. And I think you've got to look inside the numbers a little bit and understand that the president's losing support among Democrats. So, this is a little different than I think the way you guys interpret it. He's losing support from people who think that he is failing to be proactive and to be defiant of the fact that all the Republicans are trying to do is obstruct him and stop him and won't act.
And if you look at it, I think there was a poll out that yesterday I saw, it was almost like 70 percent of Americans think these children should be allowed to stay. But what precedent --
TANTAROS: Is that a Beckel institute?
WILLIAMS: In fact, O'Reilly did it --
WILLIAMS: No, no, no, you have the --
PERINO: We'll get the brain room right on that.
WILLIAMS: You know what? Americans are compassionate. No question they think something should be done here. And people also favor some kind of comprehensive reform.
So, when you talk about, why not just get a simple bill to say secure the border, people look back and say, hey, wait a second, there was a bipartisan bill with Republican support in the Senate that had a tremendous amount of money to do just that. But it also dealt with the immigration reform that the House won't even look at.
PERINO: But, Senator Reid won't even bring up the president's bill.
WILLIAMS: What do you mean? They passed that bill, Dana. They passed the Senate immigration reform bill.
PERINO: Not the president's. My point is they would not do the president's, because Democrats could not --
WILLIAMS: But the bill they had had a tremendous amount of money for border security.
TANTAROS: But it had amnesty in there, which the public has turned on, Juan --
PERINO: When you are looking for a sensible compromise, America, the first person you turn to is Greg Gutfeld.
GUTFELD: Well, first, I have to say, Juan used the word that I hate "compassion", because it's always -- people always use that to demonize the opposition. If you're not amnesty, you're against compassion.
What does amnesty do? Well, it's hurting President Obama's, a lot of his constituents. If you look at young black unemployment, 21.4 percent. These are 16 to 24-year-olds. They need jobs that are -- they're entry level jobs that everybody does. Where will those jobs go if there's amnesty?
So, that's going to hurt them if there's an influx of 5 million or 10 million. Cheap labor does nothing for them. It hurts them.
WILLIAMS: But, Greg, they're already here. These are 12 million people here. Most of them are working in this country.
PERINO: He's talking about the most recent influx, and what the president calls a humanitarian crisis.
GUTFELD: And there's a larger principle, and it's a concern of the law abiding public, is you don't become a citizen simply by showing up. That's not how it works here. There is a line.
And what the Republicans have to do I think is they must reverse the priorities. The left and President Obama has put the world before America. The right has to reverse it and put America before the world, or we become the world.
And, unfortunately, there's no America for us to flee to. We cannot be refugees in another place, as we watch our borders crumble. So, that's what we have to do.
Was that common sense?
PERINO: It was very followable.
GUTFELD: Thank you.
WILLIAMS: I just don't agree. You know what, I look out in the bay and I see the Statue of Liberty standing there and saying, you know what, come to me. You know what, we love new talent, new ideas, new people.
WILLIAMS: This is not about taking anybody out of work.
BOLLING: You know what's right next to the statue, Juan? You know what's right next to the statue?
WILLIAMS: Tell me.
BOLLING: Ellis Island.
BOLLING: Yes. So, immigrants who came over were checked in and they
were documented, and became legal through Ellis Island.
BOLLING: As opposed to swimming across the Hudson River and showing
up in New York City.
WILLIAMS: This is not -- let me tell you, most of this is not about swimming anywhere, because most of our legal immigration, I think the plurality is people who overstay their visas. So, they're flying in.
BOLLING: I wouldn't say the plurality.
WILLIAMS: It is the plurality.
GUTFELD: What you're talking about an international movement of squatters. If there was your apartment or if this was your house, or your apartment building, you would be evicting them.
WILLIAMS: Yes, I love it, though, isn't that an argument for reform saying this is the legal way to do it?
WILLIAMS: So, why don't the Republicans do that?
GUTFELD: Why aren't the Democrats putting a bill forth that doesn't include amnesty?
WILLIAMS: There's no amnesty if you saw to people --
TANTAROS: And public opinion has shifted on amnesty, and if I were Republicans right now, and I used to craft the message for the House Republicans when they would go into August recess, the message needs to be, pro-legal immigration. But it's -- I know Democrats are busy talking about humane and these kids from Guatemala and Mexico -- if the Republicans want to do the right thing, they will talk about what the influx does to American kids and how it's going to bankrupt schools and cities.
WILLIAMS: Yes, sure. Oh, I see --
TANTAROS: It's about American children. No question --
WILLIAMS: This is going to shock you. Go ask the Chamber of Commerce, the Republican favoring Chamber of Commerce, what this will do for the American economy, and what they will tell you, it would help us. It would boost the American economy.
PERINO: We got to go --
BOLLING: We just clarified not necessarily Republican favoring Chamber of Commerce. Can we just clarify that a little bit?
PERINO: OK. That was fabulous.
All right. Next --
GUTFELD: Stop patting yourself on the back.
PERINO: Nobody else will. I have to do it myself.
All right. How did Lois Lerner really feel about conservatives during her time in power at the IRS? There's one word she used to describe them that we can't even say on television, because Bob's not here. Greg's going to fill you in, coming up.
GUTFELD: A former IRS official sent emails describing conservatives and wack, crazies, and a term for an orifice that's not used for speaking.
This isn't unusual, I use the same language when describing Lou Dobbs.
However, it's disturbing because it's coming from Lois Lerner, who's at the center of the IRS targeting scandal.
The emails show the malicious intent of a flack whose office targeted political speech that their boss didn't like. The IRS, in a sense, became President Obama's goon squad, and Lois commanded the goons. She's a Batman villain, and her one and only power was political coercion.
So what's next? How about a media that cares. Seriously. This was no accident. It was planned, encouraged, carried out, then covered up with a lame investigation and a premeditated apology. And when it started going really bad, the IRS told Congress that eight workers involving investigation all had computer crashes, losing scads of data.
Now, from an odds perspective, that's like getting hit by a meteor while you win the Powerball with a unicorn strapped to your back. It's like catching Dana smoking a joint and Eric not tanning. It never happens.
But lucky for Obama, the patron saint of sweaty, left-wing hacks, his media minions are all in the same boat, rowing for "O."
It's got to be weird being a reporter and seeing the movie "All the President's Men" on TV and knowing that you're one of the men. And maybe "men" is the wrong term. Cowards seems more fitting.
You know, Dana, I just hated doing this monologue, because the language is horrible, and I didn't want to do it in front of you.
PERINO: Yes, I appreciate that, because I'm very sensitive.
GUTFELD: I know. So you think her bias influenced her decision making?
PERINO: Do you think?
GUTFELD: I don't know.
PERINO: It was kind of the most -- like this tasteful bureaucrat is the one that gets a political appointment, abuses her power and then tries to curry favor and get little pats on the back from the White House.
PERINO: I remember a couple of those people from an agency that won't be named. OK, EPA. I don't think that this position should be politically appointed.
PERINO: I think that it should be a nonpolitical position. And there's plenty of those throughout government. And I think that's one thing that Congress could do to say that they've actually tried to address this going forward.
GUTFELD: I think the IRS should be run by a robot. That's the first -- the first robot...
PERINO: Not a bad idea, actually.
TANTAROS: And to be named?
GUTFELD: Yes, just a machine that has no political affiliation whatsoever. Eric, will this administration do anything?
BOLLING: Can you imagine what we still don't know?
BOLLING: This is what we know.
So look, here's what you have to prove: motive, malice and probably state of mind -- I think you can check all three of those off -- when you're defining corruption. This is a prime example of corruption. She's proving it to herself. And I'd say quite a bit more than a smidgen of corruption.
GUTFELD: A smidgen.
BOLLING: By the way, what did she call conservatives?
BOLLING: Oh, yes, yes. Kennedy would say it rhymes with...
GUTFELD: Very good.
PERINO: Nice job.
WILLIAMS: How cute. That was very cute.
TANTAROS: That was Kennedy.
GUTFELD: Juan, let's face it, if the situation was reversed, and this was a Republican administration, there would be screaming in the streets. The New York Times, the Huffington Post. People would be going apoplectic. That's a word.
WILLIAMS: That is a word.
GUTFELD: Nice tie.
WILLIAMS: Thanks, buddy.
You know, I just think, boy, you know, I hear people talk about the left wing in the most horrible ways right here.
GUTFELD: I know.
PERINO: We're not in charge of -- we're not in charge of collecting their taxes.
WILLIAMS: Look, she's a human being, and this was a private e-mail. This was not an e-mail that she was sending to people who were, in fact, auditing some of these groups that were applying for tax-exempt status.
GUTFELD: Was she using her private e-mail for professional reasons? For that purpose?
PERINO: Remember, she -- remember...
WILLIAMS: This was a private conversation.
PERINO: I know, but don't you remember two weeks ago the e-mail that came out that said, "I'm worried about Congress, if they ask for these e- mails, they might be responsive. So let's be careful what we say on this government e-mail?"
PERINO: So she goes to her personal e-mail. And that's where she uses this kind of language to describe what she wants to do politically. See?
WILLIAMS: I don't know. I see what you're saying.
And by the way, I think that Greg's got a point, that if this was reversed, liberals would be up in arms. I agree with that.
PERINO: Someone would have...
WILLIAMS: But I've got to say, it's a private e-mail. And I don't see that it -- you said, "This is now. We've got the proof of the corruption." What, the proof that she has opinions about people?
BOLLING: State of mind. It matters.
TANTAROS: You don't think that -- you don't think this influences at all her decisions?
WILLIAMS: No. I mean...
TANTAROS: Chat, chat, chat.
PERINO: There's breaking news. We have to go.
GUTFELD: Do I have to go now?
GUTFELD: All right. We're going to turn this over to Shep.
SHEPARD SMITH, HOST, "SHEPARD SMITH REPORTING": Breaking news from the Fox News desk this afternoon. Fox News confirms the secretary of state has just announced that Hamas and the Israeli government have agreed to a 72-hour cease-fire, so the firing will stop in Gaza and in Israel for 72 hours, beginning Friday local time over there. So tomorrow morning, our time, or somewhere around 10 p.m. tonight our time, actually, a cease-fire to last 72 hours.
A humanitarian cease-fire, they tell us. As I'm sure many of our viewers know, they have -- they're in a world of hurt in Gaza. There's no power there. Hospitals are stretched to the limit. A lot of children have been injured by the -- some close to 250,000 people are displaced. And they need to get people fed and treated. So a 72-hour cease-fire.
So what happens now? Well, the interested parties involved here, from Hamas and from Israel, will go to Egypt, where they'll conduct talks. The hope was that the Egyptians could be a peace broker in all of this. At the Egyptians' word, the last time around. Of course, their government has changed, and they don't have quite the sway -- their government doesn't have quite the sway with Hamas that -- that the previous government did of the Muslim Brotherhood. But the hope is that this might lead to a lasting peace.
Now, remember, the Israelis have said, "We're going to destroy all of these tunnels, whether there's a humanitarian cease-fire or not." So what remains to be seen is whether Israeli troops will remain in the Gaza. If they do remain in the Gaza, the Hamas and many Palestinians will not be happy about that. But we'll see how this works out.
The headline, again, just in to Fox News, a humanitarian cease-fire just announced by the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, a 72-hour cease-fire in the war in the Middle East, to begin on Friday. Talks will happen in Egypt.
I'm Shepard Smith at the Fox News desk. "The Five" continues after this.
TANTAROS: This is a Fox News alert. A cease-fire between Israel and Hamas has been reached. This is a 72-hour cease-fire that will commence in the Middle East starting 8 a.m. local time there, 1 a.m. here. This is a big development. And they are citing humanitarian reasons for the cease- fire.
So Eric, what do you think about this? We've seen some pretty explosive footage happening. It's only 72 hours. But why now?
BOLLING: I'm going to take this tact. I think Israel's -- they're doing this for humanitarian reasons. They're giving Hamas a break to think about what they're really doing. It's time for Hamas to say "enough."
I think Hamas is losing the support, not only of the Arab world but their own Palestinian people. They're getting destroyed. They should just at some point say, "Look, we give up." Put the Palestinians back in charge of the Palestinian Authority, get the terrorist Hamas out there.
By the way, during this whole campaign, Israel is somewhere around 92 percent support for what they're doing. So unless Hamas backs out, I think this is going to continue, these stupid rolling cease-fires. Finish this off; just put your hands up.
TANTAROS: There's no question, Dana, that Israel's winning, and they could completely eradicate Hamas.
Some of the pictures, though, today, in newspapers I was reading today, the U.N. condemning Israel, showing these horrific pictures of Palestinians running out of broken buildings. Do you think Israel is stopping because they don't want to let Hamas win this P.R. war and say, "OK, we'll give you your 72 hours, so that doesn't reflect poorly on us"? What do you think the thinking is?
PERINO: I think they might be beyond that, actually. I think that they made a decision that the media is not going to help them. I think the tunnels really were a huge wakeup call. They planned attacks on Rosh Hoshana. That's why the country, I think, in Israel, 92 percent support going forward and finishing the job.
I do think that Hamas, because they have in the past, they're the ones who have broken the cease-fire of the past couple weeks, so I assume they'll do again. Plus, 72 hours, to be cynical, is just enough time to reposition enough women and children to be targets again if Israel restarts their operations.
TANTAROS: Greg, you've said before, no cease-fires, especially when you're winning. Do you think Israel should have agreed to this or just kept going?
GUTFELD: I think the cease-fire is for John Kerry, just to get him away from things, so he doesn't cause any more trouble.
Cease-fire in Hamas means reload. It's a time-out for terror. Sometimes the merciful thing is to let someone win.
But the refreshing thing, what Eric pointed out, is that much of the Arab world is on Israel's side here. They can't stand Hamas or Hezbollah. What's interesting is what happened to Hollywood. In 2006, 85 entertainers put out an ad condemning Hezbollah and Hamas. But you haven't heard much of anything except Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, siding with the others, or at least not supporting...
PERINO: Joan Rivers has supported.
GUTFELD: Yes, Joan Rivers and Howard Stern are the only outspoken.
TANTAROS: And Madonna has also not supported Israel...
TANTAROS: ... but she's compared the Palestinian children to little flowers.
WILLIAMS: Well, let me just say, I don't know how you guys missed it, but you know, it's not only that the United States has expressed concern about the slaughter taking place there...
PERINO: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're saying the Israelis are...
WILLIAMS: Let me just say -- well, I mean, there's no getting away from it. A minute ago you said -- listen, Israel is a superior power. They could wipe out -- wipe out all the people they want to.
TANTAROS: They could.
WILLIAMS: But hang on. But it's not only...
TANTAROS: And they haven't.
WILLIAMS: Not only that people have said, what's going on? the United Nations has now said it...
TANTAROS: The United Nations?
WILLIAMS: There is slaughter involved, right?
PERINO: Terrorists are the slaughterers.
WILLIAMS: What are you talking about? Terrorists are slaughterers. And -- but military, when you have someone who is not a soldier getting killed, you know, and you see children -- it's just upsetting.
So Israel is making a smart move here. Israel is trying to regain moral authority, make sure that people don't buy into what the U.N...
TANTAROS: It already has moral authority. It's fighting against a terrorist organization.
GUTFELD: And to that point, I think Israel is the only country in the world that calls ahead when they're bombing.
TANTAROS: Yes. And drops fliers.
PERINO: That's slaughtering.
WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think that's what those people...
TANTAROS: Got to go. Still ahead, just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg breaks her silence on the Hobby Lobby case and takes a giant swipe at some of her male colleagues in the process. You'll hear her up next.
WILLIAMS: It's been a month since the Supreme Court issued its controversial Hobby Lobby ruling. And we're now hearing from one of the dissenting justices on the case. Here's Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining why she ruled the way she did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: The decision that an employer could refuse to cover contraceptives, meant that women would have to take care of that for themselves.
Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to, to control her own destiny. They have no Constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work for them who don't share that belief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: And listen to what she had to say about five of her male colleagues. She thinks they have a, quote, "blind spot," end quote, when it comes to women's issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE COURIC, JOURNALIST: Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?
GINSBURG: I would have to say no.
COURIC: But you do in fact feel these five justices had a bit of a blind spot?
GINSBURG: In Hobby Lobby, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: Andrea, blind spot on the part of the male colleagues?
TANTAROS: Could you imagine if Justice Scalia would say the same thing about the women on the court, that they have a blind spot? In other words, they're not reasonable. I can't imagine...
GUTFELD: Or rational.
TANTAROS: And rational. I can't imagine justices besmirching each other like this.
She's also besmirching the court that she presides on, basically saying that "It doesn't really work, because the guys that I work with, they're not reasonable. They can't come up with a reasonable position on this.
WILLIAMS: I don't think she said that. She said as a man...
TANTAROS: Let me just finish, Juan. She's supposed to interpret these -- these laws of the Constitution with some regularity and some due process here. Isn't she sort of saying, keep men away from this court? In a way? That is how I took it.
I mean, look, I get it. She's a fan of birth control. But she is an enemy to the Bill of Rights and to civil rights of she's going to give interviews and make comments like this.
GUTFELD: But I think the -- the disturbing point is that what you see over and over again is that one cannot empathize with somebody who is different from you.
So using that logic, only black doctors should study sickle cell anemia. All pediatricians should be children. Veterinarians should be terriers. Because that's -- you cannot have any -- you cannot have somebody else or something dealing with something different. It's a consequence of divisive thinking. And what it is, is it replaces competence with illusions of empathy.
WILLIAMS: Dana, what do you think?
PERINO: Well, I think that in 1972, when the nine male justices approved Roe v. Wade, that there wasn't a blind spot.
I think that on this one, Megyn Kelly on "The Kelly File" did a very good job of dismantling the argument that Katie Couric and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were making.
And don't forget that what the justices were being asked to do is to talk about should the government pay -- force an employer to pay for four contraceptives after they'd already agreed to pay for 16. So I think it's blown way out of proportion. I actually think the court was being very narrow.
The way to solve all of this, in my opinion, kind of radical, but I think we should have no employer benefits, do everything on the open market, approve all of these drugs over the counter, and then if your health plan or your government decides that they want to pay for it, Medicaid or something that pays for it, fine. The employers should not be forced.
WILLIAMS: But don't we -- don't we give huge tax benefits to corporations to provide...
PERINO: I think that should be eliminated.
WILLIAMS: OK, OK. Eric.
BOLLING: I'm blown away. I agree with Dana that, when I was listening to it, I was like this is a -- this is a Supreme Court justice, lumping all contraceptives together? Basically saying, well, Hobby Lobby or an employer shouldn't have the right to keep women from contraceptives. And this is exactly what it is not about. Hobby Lobby was about four of the 20 potential types of contraceptives that they disagreed with. It's unbelievable.
If she's making decisions on something so important, wouldn't you think she'd have a working knowledge of what's really -- what it's about? That's scary.
WILLIAMS: Well, I think what she's saying -- I think what she's saying is these guys, older men, didn't understand the issue. And from her perspective as an older woman...
TANTAROS: Older men on the...
WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. You know me. As the oldest one here, I'm an ageist.
PERINO: Are you?
WILLIAMS: "One More Thing" up next.
I mean, I think I am.
BOLLING: All right. It's time for "One More Thing." I'm going to kick it off.
So it's time for this.
GRAPHIC: Fool of the Week.
BOLLING: All right. Earlier in the week, Penelope Cruz, along with her hubby, Javier Bardem, as pointed out earlier, they denounced Israel in a heavy-handed open letter, trashing our great ally.
Well, today the starlet walked back her criticism of Israel, admitting, quote, "I'm not an expert on the situation, and I'm aware of the complaints."
Just wanted to let you know, Penelope, that earned you the "Fool of the Week." Greg.
GUTFELD: She's a hot fool.
BOLLING: She's a hot fool. In the movie "The Counselor," fantastic.
All right, Ands.
TANTAROS: OK. I love stories like this. Noah Aldridge, he is an 8- year-old boy. He decided to take his younger brother everywhere he goes. That includes the triathlon that Noah just completed. Here he is, weighing in on why he decided to take his special needs brother all the way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOAH ALDRIDGE, COMPLETED TRIATHLON WITH SPECIAL NEEDS BROTHER: I asked my mom if I could do it, with Lucas. He most of the time doesn't get what I get to do. Like when I play sports, he has to just watch. I just want to finish with Lucas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TANTAROS: His brother suffers from a nervous system disorder, which allows him to only do a few basic things in life. But his brother says, "He's always going to go wherever I go." Very cute.
BOLLING: Good stuff. Dana, you're up.
PERINO: All right. Who dat?
BOLLING: Who dat?
PERINO: Who dat? It is Drew Brees, the New Orleans Saints quarterback, and he's not only good at throwing a football. One thing I always wish I could do is toss a Frisbee. Take a look at this.
There you go. He's very talented. Now, if I could throw a football or a Frisbee, Jasper would have a lot more fun at the park. I don't throw like a girl, but kind of.
GUTFELD: Jasper, Jasper, Jasper.
Anyway, this happened in a baseball game between the Pirates and the Giants, greatest team ever. Jordy Mercer -- why don't you show it? So he hits the ball, right. It's a home run. Still loses to the Giants. Ha ha. But look what happens. Slow motion, watch. PERINO: Oh, my gosh! That's why I don't go to baseball games.
GUTFELD: I guess that beer is on her.
There's services in the parking lot in memory of that beer. It was $12 down the drain.
TANTAROS: You would be so mad if that were you.
GUTFELD: Twelve dollars!
WILLIAMS: I want to stay in baseball, because last night, Arlington, Texas, look at this. A surprise appearance. There's Derek Jeter in his farewell tour. He's retiring. But guess who shows up? It's President Bush. President Bush saying good-bye to Derek Jeter. Remember right after 9/11, he was at Yankee Stadium and threw out the first ball. Jeter's advice, don't bounce it.
Also, news today that George W. Bush is going to write a book about his dad. One of my favorite people.
BOLLING: All right. We've got to leave it right there. Good job. Great stuff, everyone. Don't forget: set your DVRs; never miss an episode of "The Five." We'll be back tomorrow. See you Monday.
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.