Sign in to comment!

The Five

Does President Obama stand with Israel?

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 3, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Julie Roginsky, Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

Benjamin Netanyahu gave his long waited address to a joint session of Congress today to make the case against one of President Obama's top foreign policy initiatives, a nuclear deal with Iran. As usual, the Israeli prime minister didn't mince his words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: This deal has two major concessions. One, leaving the Iran with a vast nuclear program, and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade, that's why this deal -- is so bad. It doesn't plot the Iran's path to the bomb it paves the Iran's path to the bomb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: The prime minister call on the world to choose another path standing up to Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

NETANYAHU: But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

NETANYAHU: I know that you stand with Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: Passion, pride of country, concern for the free world. Netanyahu gave President Obama a lesson in leadership. But, does President Obama stand with Israel? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I did not have a chance to watch the Prime Minister Netanyahu speech. I did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. And, as far as I can tell, there was nothing new. On the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: Alright. There were -- there were plenty of standing ovations, a lot of clapping -- I got to tell you K.G. on the way.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Yeah.

BOLLING: Into the chamber, he was getting a standing ovation, a clapping and people are alined. Members of Congress and the Senate were lining up on the aisle to shake his hand like -- when President Obama on the State of the Union, maybe even more so.

GUILFOYLE: Well, better than that, even. I mean, it was just -- it was thunderous applause, everybody wanted to touch him, like he was a rock star and he went it, I thought he did a very good job. I think he's an effective, passionate communicator, a man that delivers a speech with purpose. I believe every word that he said, he feels, and that is the world views he has in terms of -- you know, Iran (inaudible). And by the way, I don't understand why the U.S. is so reluctant to call out Iran for who they are. These are people who I think the world's largest supporter of terrorism is Iran. I mean, they have provided safe haven for members of Osama bin Laden family, and they encourage terrorism wherever they go. This is our one chance. This is our shot to get it right. History will not judge the United States in this administration kindly if they drop the ball here.

BOLLING: Julie, Prime Minister Netanyahu started open by thanking President Obama for three different things that the President Obama has done in a less couple of years and then he proceeded to eviscerate everything that was going on with the negotiations with Iran.

JULIE ROGINSKY, GUEST CO-HOST: That's a good politician, right? Killing with kindness. Look, I've met -- Bibi Netanyahu, he is by far the most charismatic person I've ever met in my entire life.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Wait, what about me?

ROGINSKY: Next to Greg Gutfeld --

GUILFOYLE: What about Bill Clinton?

ROGINSKY: More so than Bill Clinton.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: I would say something.

ROGINSKY: Yeah, that's saying something. He's -- Clinton's is very charismatic, he's much more so, but I wouldn't say much more but he is more charismatic. So he gives a good speech, and I agree, but this is a speech that he's been giving -- he's been giving for some time. And what I was looking for today was something new that he was gonna say that he hasn't said in AIPAC the day before that he haven't said in previous iterations. And the problem is that, he didn't really address exactly how we're gonna get to go about -- getting rid of the bomb with -- I --listen, I agree. The goal here is to make sure Iran doesn't go nuclear. He lead out the problem, I would have liked to see him lay out solutions. I've heard a lot of --

BOLLING: Can I add something?

ROGINSKY: Yeah, go ahead.

BOLLING: Senator Kerry -- Secretary of State Kerry warned that Bibi Netanyahu not leak any of the plans, send in the details of that meeting. Therefore.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

BOLLING: He couldn't really lay out a plan, because maybe he would be leaking some of the details that what was going on behind closed doors so, I thought it was a fantastic speech.

PERINO: But I think what the president has changed the benchmark, for Netanyahu speech. He said, well, he didn't give me any specifics or anything that I could go forward but, had Netanyahu done that. The first thing they would have said is, how dare you saying in the open that our negotiating position and -- that would have been the story. But Netanyahu did say is, let's step back for a moment America, and let's think about and discuss the nature of the regime, the true nature of regime and what we are up against, the big moment. You don't give a speech to the nation where you're going to lay out the nitty-gritty details. He did say that there were three conditions that he wanted, which was one, an end of aggression against neighbors in the Middle East -- this is from Iran. Stop funding terror and stop threatening to annihilate Israel. Those are three specific things that he said we should be able to agree on, and that the way, the path that we're going down which he said is actually paving the way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I thought that the speech hit the right mark for what he wanted to do and it was respectful to the president.

GUILFOYLE: Well --

PERINO: And it didn't disrupt any of the negotiations.

BOLLING: One of the biggest --

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

BOLLING: One of the biggest applauses he got is when he said when it comes to Iran and ISIS -- he compared Iran to ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. And then he compared to select the big old game of Game of Thrones but -- is that, is that a fair comparison?

GUTFELD: Well, they'll be called us the bully pulpit, but it's not. It's the anti-bully pulpit, because he's actually coming out against the world's bullies and this is an opportunity for him to say something that the United States hasn't been saying. And -- when you have President Obama saying, I'm not -- I'm not watching this, it's like saying, I'm not going to that party if that person is here. That's not presidential.

GUILFOYLE: No.

GUTFELD: I mean that -- that's adolescent. I mean, he's not a world leader. He's not even a scout leader. He's not even Leader Hozen. I mean, it just comes off so lightweight. It's weird and you know, I think there's a message that President Obama is trying to say through his subtle behaviors and the message is to the Islamic world, I am not in Israel's pocket. I'm in your pocket. I'm in -- I'm Muslim linked (ph) -- no, I'm kidding. But on he's more, he's more in line, he wants to be sympathetic, he wants to portray - you know, be more sympathetic to Islam and he does that by keeping his distance with Israel and I think you know, that's what he's been trying to do all awhile.

GUILFOYLE: But what about Hollywood details? (ph) --

BOLLING: What's the fact you know?

GUILFOYLE: I want to get some reaction to that.

BOLLING: K.G. was it not refreshing to hear a world leader stand up and call it what it is? It's Islamic, it's Islamic terror and we need to stop the aggression.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah. I mean, this guy's got the biggest target on his back and he showed up, right? In France, no problem with like -- listen, I'm going to stand with certainty, with conviction and courage. I am not afraid of you, I am not afraid of words and I have specific actions that I want to take and I know what we need to do. How refreshing and then our president comes out and said, yeah, we know -- we stand with Israel yet he's like seated like this. That's the president show like this every day. What was that? What was that? I mean, it's so disrespectful and I get it, do you and I think he was probably advised, don't stand up and give a speech, like sit down, like this was no big deal. Don't elevate Netanyahu's importance and the significant of this moment in history. Fail.

BOLLING: Julie, Netanyahu, one of the other huge applause I was -- was, if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. President Obama is playing around with this nuclear deal. He's basically saying, in 10 years, the deals is gonna expire. They're giving Iran a lot of the things that they want, on one hand. On the other hand, you have a world leader Netanyahu who was saying, they better start acting like a normal country or -- were gonna -- or we'll do it, Israel is saying, do it. (ph)

ROGINSKY: Well, I love their --

BOLLING: Very different ways of treating it right.

ROGINSKY: The rhetoric is great and I love it. I'm so happy for Netanyahu that they've able to bring that passion to a cost that I know he truly believes --

GUILFOYLE: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: Believes in. However, I still want to know exactly what Israel is prepared to do with or without us. Because, if this deal falls apart -- and I hope --

BOLLING: We know they've done it before.

ROGINSKY: No, no, but I get it. But if this deal falls apart and let's assumes the Iranians do sign off -- don't sign off on it, they go back on it, with the North Korean said, you know, there's 20 different scenarios as to how this is going to end in disaster. But if it ends in disaster, let's be clear, we are marching towards potential war with Iran. And that's what I want to talk -- and that's what -- nobody's talking about.

BOLLING: You know what? Israel is marching towards potential war.

ROGINSKY: No. Israel is not doing with Iran. (ph)

BOLLING: That's the way I read that. I read that Dana, if America -- if U.S won't stand with us, we'll do this alone.

PERINO: Well, and he said that in the past, that's what we have had to do on this -- one of the differences here is that Iran wants to build is an intercontinental missile. So -- yes, but one, we would stand with Israel and we have an obligation to help protect Israel, in my opinion. And that's what presidents in the past and I think President Obama upholds that. Because, nobody wants to put the president of the United States, whoever it's going to be, in a position of having to make that particular decision. That's why these negotiations are so important.

GUILFOYLE: So important.

PERINO: And the fundamental disagreement between Netanyahu and the Obama administration is, this core disagreement about, can Iran change? President Obama.

BOLLING: Yes.

PERINO: Is fond of saying, Iran needs to get right with the world. They need to be -- they need to join the 21st century. He says that about Putin too. The thing that their view of the world is not necessarily how our enemies or -- so, I don't know what you'd call Putin at this point but, that's not how they see themselves. And I think that's the frustration that America is having with President Obama and why that's reflect the in the public opinion polls? That they think -- why is it that we can see this threat so clearly, but he doesn't seem to? And then they think, what does he know that we don't know and all that you get is that -- just trust me. Well -- I don't think that the Congress is in a position to say, trust you to make a deal -- you're only the president the next two years. We actually have to live with this.

ROGINSKY: You know --

PERINO: For the future.

ROGINSKY: And I said to your point, I said yesterday and I really mean it. That I'm worried that the president wants this deal so badly. There's so dying for a deal, he's gonna conclude a deal that's not in the interest of our country or the interest of Israel or even the interest of the Sunni powers --

GUILFOYLE: That's the problem.

ROGINSKY: In the Middle East. However, I keep going back to the follow (ph). If you don't try and attempt to do something and then see what happens.

(CROSSTALK)

ROGINSKY: Let's see what happens.

GUTFELD: Wait, wait, wait, this is the issue, try to do something. This is the problem. It's like, if you took out Iran and put in Obamacare, this is the same exact story. Creating something without any potential or idea about the consequences, as long as we just get something done because, blank is broken.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

GUTFELD: We must fix it. And so they have no idea what's gonna happen next. The deal, this deal, when you say deal it implies give and take. But when it's with President Obama who wants something so badly, it becomes give and give.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

GUTFELD: There is no give and take in -- Obama's world. He can cooperate with Iran, but not with Republicans. I -- we should get the amazing Kreskin in and hypnotize President Obama.

GUILFOYLE: Oh my, God.

GUTFELD: So he believes that Iran is actually the Republicans and that the Republicans are actually Iran. We might actually get something done in the United States and we might actually be able to deal with people who want to kill us.

BOLLING: Let me --

GUILFOYLE: That is a solution.

BOLLING: Let me --

GUTFELD: Thank you. I'm going.

BOLLING: I want to go on --

GUILFOYLE: Bye, bye. BOLLING: To put this next piece but, Susan said, and I think all the Democrats are on the same page that a bad deal is better deal than no deal at all. That is flawed thinking folks. No -- in no scenario is a bad deal better than no deal. My definition, a bad deal is a bad deal. Alright, some Democrats tried their hardest to discredit the prime minister following his speech. Listen to this loony remark from Kentucky Congressman John

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN YARMUTH, KENTUCKY CONGRESSMAN: I'd like to congratulate Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu on a very impressive bit of political theater. This speech was straight-out in the (inaudible) playbook. This was fear mongering at its ultimate. Netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable deal was a perfect deal, or an ideal deal. It's like the child who says, I want to go to Disneyland every day, eat ice cream and drink coca-cola every day and not go to school.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: Alright Greg, you can --

GUTFELD: At first, I -- I have to say that was a good try at an analogy. Look -- basically, he's upset about how the speech was handled. He's more upset about the speech than he is about the secret negotiations with the arbiters of Armageddon. Basically, he's complaining about a mosquito bite while we're being eaten by a bear. And do not be fooled about how they're upset about protocol, it's not about protocol. They're upset because of their prince. Their prince is upset, that's not to do with rules. They're like a clique from mean girls, upset that there -- at the star high school student is getting bullied.

GUILFOYLE: You have a (inaudible) so foolish. I mean, that, that is really counterproductive. I think it is conduct unbecoming -- someone in Congress to behave in this way and disparage him like grow up, I don't know. I think anybody who didn't show up and behave like this just get voted out. Keep track.

BOLLING: Nancy Pelosi -- Dana take this one. Nancy Pelosi said she was in tears. When I saw that wow, that was fantastic, she went near tears and then she said, because she was -- she was so offended.

PERINO: I thought she was going to say, I was in tears because I was so moved.

(CROSSTALK)

GUILFOYLE: So did I, I re-read it three times. It's like, what?

PERINO: I -- she -- that was quite over the top. And for the Congressman to bring up Dick Cheney, that his -- put his staffer was like, I know how we can get some attention back home. Bring that Dick Cheney --

GUILFOYLE: Yeah. PERINO: I mean he's just the clown himself on national television.

GUTFELD: It's Dick Cheney turrets.

PERINO: Yeah.

GUTFELD: Whatever anything goes wrong, they go -- Cheney.

PERINO: I would think like I --

ROGINSKY: It works --

PERINO: I would --

ROGINSKY: It works very badly.

PERINO: I would rather have Cheney at the negotiating table.

GUILFOYLE: I would too.

PERINO: Well --

GUILFOYLE: Shake it in front of a couple of --

PERINO: Alright.

GUILFOYLE: Just let him pee on his pants.

GUTFELD: Don't let him have a gun, though.

ROGINSKY: That foreign policy worked out well for eight years, alright. OK. Look, I agree with you that he shouldn't have said what he said the same time, I have to keep going back to the fact that -- look, when you have -- first of all, it was yesterday, Democrats should not have boycotted this speech. They should have given him the courtesy, if not for him, for the state of Israel to show up. So that's a really bad thing that they all did. I think 53 or they are all 57 -- PERINO: But that's what happened and President Obama has pulled the Democrat --

ROGINSKY: But --

PERINO: So far --

ROGINSKY: But --

PERINO: Left, that now they don't even support Israel.

ROGINSKY: No, no, no.

PERINO: It's crazy.

ROGINSKY: They do support Israel. You can't say that. Because --

PERINO: I am saying it.

ROGINSKY: Even if they do --

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: You can't say that about us.

ROGINSKY: You can't say that.

BOLLING: Why not?

ROGINSKY: Because even in Israel, about 50 percent if not a little less of the population didn't think Netanyahu should be giving the speech. I mean you can't say they are --

GUILFOYLE: Who cares?

ROGINSKY: Who cares? They're talking about being anti-Semitism. Half of Israelis are anti in their own country?

GUILFOYLE: They get paid to show up, that's the point. Show up. Have some class.

BOLLING: I would say the same thing. I would say the people who didn't show up -- I agree with Dana, it's -- it's an absolute disrespect to the state of Israel.

GUILFOYLE: Throw out that often.

BOLLING: It is sworn into America, how about Iran's true intentions by helping fight the war against ISIS, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: Alright. As debate flares over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there's also increasing concerns about the country's ambitions in Iraq. Iran's revolutionary guard has take in charge of helping Iraq's military drive out ISIS from Saddam Hussein hometown Tikrit. General Jack Keane and former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell are very wary of Tehran's role in the campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENERAL JACK KEANE, RETIRED U.S. ARMY: The fact of this, Iranians have much to do with the planning, they're on the ground with the Shia militia forces are doing the fighting. They have provided the rockets and the artillery, but there's no doubt that this is an Iranian-led and an Iranian supported operation.

MIKE MORELL, FORMER CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Iran is I think the most effective fighting force inside of Iraq. There's a real risk here that over the long run, we can defeat ISIS in Iraq, but we might hand Iraq to the Iranians, in a diplomatic sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: OK. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns we shouldn't be fooled by Iran's common interest in wiping out ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. To when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

NETANYAHU: The difference is that ISIS is our own butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas, Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: So Kimberly this is a --

GUILFOYLE: Yeah.

PERINO: Very screwed up situation.

GUILFOYLE: I know.

PERINO: Because --

GUILFOYLE: Like three --

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: As he said, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy, but for those who had said, why aren't the Iraqi's doing anything? They fight back against ISIS, they're getting help from Iran who was actually on the ground.

GUILFOYLE: Right. He's stepping in.

PERINO: In Iraq.

GUILFOYLE: Probably about 24,000 you know ground forces infantry -- infantry, there's gonna have probably be heavy casualties. They're gonna have to deal with the -- I probably predict of substantial loss of life. You've got Iran at the helm. They do have some very skilled -- you know, generals in charge but, this doesn't have, you know, U.S. DNA or fingerprints on it. We're going to have to see what the fallout is and see what in fact defending this has on the battle to retake missile.

PERINO: That's what I would say. I think Iran's elite army --

GUTFELD: Yeah.

PERINO: On the ground, it cannot necessarily spell good things for our involvement. However, apparently we're mad, because nobody told us it was happening until the late stages of the planning. So we're sitting on our hands and we're still not helping.

GUTFELD: You were -- you just came out because -- you came out with a model -- perfect model. The Middle East, it's a screwed up situation.

PERINO: Right.

GUTFELD: Because we will -- 20 years from now, we're still gonna be having this conversation, we had this conversation 20 years ago and 20 years before that. The Middle East, it's a screwed up situation, come join us. You know what's interesting? I have a crazy conspiracy. ISIS was allowed to prosper to make Iran look civilized in contrast. It's like -- you look at Iran and you know, well --

PERINO: Right.

GUILFOYLE: They are not so bad.

GUTFELD: It can't be that bad.

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

GUTFELD: We used to use our civilization as a measuring stick, now we use evil, we use ISIS. We gonna -- well, if you're not as bad as ISIS, then you're OK, which raises a concern, when something -- I will -- will ISIS then become acceptable when something even worse comes along.

ROGINSKY: you mentioned 20 y4ears ago. Let me take you back to the House in days in 30 years ago.

GUTFELD: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: When Saddam Hussein was in power, remember him? A horrible death -- but, what they did was, go to war against each other, war on Iraq fought, it's like came long war.

GUTFELD: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: Where they killed each other, and they were absolutely the bulk work against aggressions of anybody else, because they were too busy going after each other. Which is Kimberly point out yesterday is a great strategy, but actually is.

GUTFELD: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: Because with these people are doing is killing themselves, they can't come and kill us. Long behold, we decide to get rid of Saddam Hussein, which allows the best thing we ever did for Iran was to allow Saddam Hussein to go away, because now there's no more bulk work against Iran. Iran is able to run around shot, (inaudible) remember him in 2004. His father was oppressed and killed by Saddam Hussein. He goes to Iran, he comes back, he takes over a large part of Iraq -- you know, and so on and so forth. The Iranians were absolutely allowed to prosper because of what we did to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

PERINO: I actually say that the -- I think Eric, the thing that allowed the Iranians to do this was the fact that we signaled and left too early, before the Iraqi's government was fully set and the military was ready to go.

BOLLING: Right --

GUILFOYLE: That is the --

BOLLING: Once you're there, you might as well finish the job. And that's what happened. We didn't, we left and there was that bleeding down from Syria. But let's not forget something else too. At one point, when we were really mad at Bashar al-Assad in Syria, we almost armed the rebels against Bashar al-Assad and now we're saying what we need Basher al-Assad to fight ISIS back from the north while Turkey maybe hits from the side and maybe Iraq pushes some back up. Here's the point. We have to be careful how engaged and how involved we get in it, that's why keep coming back -- in my opinion, I know this isn't going to be popular, stay with the air war, continue to pound them from the air when you know where they are and we do. We have plenty of maps that show exactly where ISIS, where ISIS camps are, where the headquarters are, or the training camps are, continue to pound that and I hate this unholy alliance of Iranians standing arm in arm with Iraq.

GUILFOYLE: Terrible.

BOLLING: We trained that Iraqi army.

(CROSSTALK)

GUILFOYLE: But I agree with what you are saying, that if we -- this could have been prevented if we made the right moves and made the right calls and we just turned Iraq over to like a babysitter with no credentials, like hey, how about it. Whoever wants to come in and be the biggest evil doer in the world, I think Iran right now is kind of very associated with ISIS -- the biggest bad guy there.

BOLLING: What if it there --

PERINO: We got to get going.

BOLLING: What if do -- if we did put ground troops in, where would they go? And where they -- fight next to Iranians?

PERINO: I think that they're again, -- there is middle ground in terms of, you could have more air strikes, but you have to have people on the ground to tell them where to strike. You can't just do it from the air, but we can do a lot more from the air.

BOLLING: You know that.

PERINO: It's like you could do more sanctions (ph) in Iran, et cetera. You don't just have to send in ground troops or do nothing.

GUILFOYLE: Correct.

PERINO: OK. I get the last word, fine. Hillary Clinton had a very un-transparent (ph) way of doing business while she was secretary of state. She just a private e-mail account throughout her tenure, did she have things the way she wanted to hide? Ahead.

GUILFOYLE: That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: Did Hillary use personal e-mail only for government business as secretary of state, registering the account on the day of her confirmation hearings, which is no web blog at all, trust me. Now she since turned over 55,000 pages of these e-mails to the government, but only after her aides looted the best stuff. You can bet what it handed over was junk, nobody wanted. It's like leaving the congealed tapioca from a day old buffet. I know. So why didn't she use government e-mail? Was it too hard to log on? Did she forget her password? We know it's not Benghazi forever. Was she worried we'd see her favorite websites? She was always looking for new lamps to replace the one she thrown at Bill. Or was it just her smug pride? She was always above the rest of us. She called herself transparent, but happily skirted the rules.

Yes, skirt. On the day this news broke, the artist who painted the official portrait of Bill Clinton confesses he snuck a shadow of Monica Lewinsky's dress into that work of art. Can you see it there? It's a selfie with a stainy.

Like that dress, the e-mails revealed a height of carelessness only the arrogant few can reach. A leader using private e-mail protects herself but not her country. How do you know she didn't transmit classified info? We'll never know, because those e-mails are gone. But can you blame her for being so covert? After all, the Clintons have to keep secrets, for they have so many to keep.

All right. I'm going to go to the lawyer first -- Dana. No, kidding. K.G., she broke the law?

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Because there's specific codes for this. And that have been enacted to say under the Federal Records Act that you have to comply with this and keep it. It makes a lot of sense, right? We want to know what they're up to, especially in a position like the State Department.

Now juxtaposed, I see John Kerry is, in fact, using the government e-mail, and they are properly archiving it.

So now what we have is no accountability, no transparency. And I think it was very obvious the reason why. It's because they knew or entertained the idea that she would be running for president of the United States.

You have other candidates like Jeb Bush...

GUTFELD: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: ... who has been releasing a trove of e-mails. And here, what do we have? This from the Clintons. So more -- again, this is underhanded, not appropriate. Just like taking money from foreign countries.

GUTFELD: Julie, I mean, we all have personal e-mail accounts. I use mine to communicate with troubled teens. But she...

ROGINSKY: Is that what you do with them?

GUTFELD: She's running for president. Is she done? I get the cents that it's the Democrats that are going to abandon her. She's finished. She should just leave now?

ROGINSKY: No, she's not done. I mean, look, let's take a look at some polls. But I bet you this isn't really going to sink her.

GUTFELD: Really?

ROGINSKY: No, of course not. But I do think what Kimberly said is right. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior. And let's look at the timeline of when she did this. If you remember the Bush administration -- Dana could obviously speak to this -- on its way out had a scandal.

PERINO: Oh, boy.

ROGINSKY: But it's true.

PERINO: No. It's not the same.

ROGINSKY: But listen.

PERINO: No, no, no, no, no. There was an -- no, no, no. I'm glad I have -- do I have an opportunity?

GUTFELD: Yes, please.

ROGINSKY: I want to talk about it.

PERINO: OK. There's -- the e-mail issue in the Bush administration was about archiving specific e-mails and had those archives not been dealt with appropriately. We said, "Our IT might not have been as good." But guess what? All those e-mails were found.

ROGINSKY: But were there not private e-mails that were used?

PERINO: There were -- no, that was a separate thing that John Podesta worried about, as a matter of fact, and he said it's not appropriate that you would have government work done on a private e-mail.

ROGINSKY: That's right.

PERINO: So the issue was if you're in a political office, you have to have two e-mails. People were overcompensating and trying to do both. And that was where the rub came down. And that got fixed.

That is three years before Hillary Clinton takes over an entire department in which she is in charge, and those e-mails do not belong to her. They belong to...

ROGINSKY: But you're making my point for me. The point is this was...

PERINO: But it's not the same.

ROGINSKY: but wait a second.

PERINO: But nobody -- nobody would -- An IT issue of not archiving e-mails is totally different than making a decision to not have a government e- mail, to hide them from the American public.

ROGINSKY: No. That's not the issue I'm talking about. There was a political scandal about the use of private e-mails in the Bush White House. I'm not excusing her behavior. I'm actually saying that, because people like John Podesta were criticizing that, or because people like the Clintons were criticizing that, the fact that she went ahead and did the same thing, to me, is inexcusable. You can't be a hypocrite and criticize one party for doing it and not criticize both.

So actually, Dana, I'm actually making your point for you.

PERINO: No, you're not. Because you're actually -- It's not the same. All the e-mails were found and turned over. So...

ROGINSKY: The private e-mails?

PERINO: They were found -- and the ones that going to the RNC political office, yes.

ROGINSKY: OK. How do we know that they were all found?

PERINO: Oh, my God.

GUILFOYLE: She was there.

ROGINSKY: OK.

GUTFELD: So Eric.

BOLLING: Can I give another motive?

GUTFELD: Yes, sure.

BOLLING: Let me clarify this. Be my lawyer here.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Is this a conspiracy theory? How weird is it?

BOLLING: No, no, it's not that weird. I mean, she's the only -- granted other secretaries of state have used private e-mails. But she's the only one who's used only a private e-mail. What does that tell you? She had things that she wanted only her to see that the State Department wasn't going to see.

Juxtapose that with some of the things that I mentioned yesterday from the Wall Street Journal...

GUILFOYLE: Right.

BOLLING: ... talking about 60 different companies that made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Some of them, many of them had been made after arranging some amazing deals with foreign countries, with foreign companies that Hillary Clinton had brokered. So she brokers a deal. Somehow the companies who are -- U.S. companies who are benefiting from these deals end up making donations to the Clinton Foundation. We will not know, because those e-mails were done -- all that business was done via private e-mail. And the aides to Hillary Clinton have chosen, most likely, not to turn over those e-mails.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

BOLLING: But she'll turn over the ones, as you point out, the tapioca, whatever. Old tapioca.

GUTFELD: OK.

PERINO: But that's the other thing is, is...

GUILFOYLE: The law is different, too. Does everybody realize that?

PERINO: The law changed in 2009.

GUILFOYLE: Correct.

BOLLING: Under Obama.

PERINO: Presumably you have to be in charge.

GUTFELD: Thanks, Obama.

PERINO: Thanks, Obama.

The other thing is her office today said, well, if she was sending an official e-mail, she was sending it to somebody with a State Department e- mail, so therefore, those people are responsible. The burden of proof here is not on the recipient of the e-mail. It's on the sender of the e-mail.

BOLLING: And what about the e-mails that go -- she's the State Department. State Department e-mails that don't go back to the State Department? They go to private companies; they go to private individuals. We don't have a right to see that?

PERINO: You know, and this is -- talk about a pattern. This also happened in the EPA.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: The former EPA administrator...

GUTFELD: Did a fake name.

PERINO: She had a fake name, Richard Windsor.

GUTFELD: Yes, a great name.

PERINO: And she was -- she had a fake e-mail...

GUTFELD: Right.

PERINO: ... so that she could communicate with the green groups inappropriately, illegally. She then quietly resigns and no one ever follows up on it.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: Actually, I think this -- here's the problem. It's not just a Hillary Clinton problem. This goes straight to the top. This is -- she works for him, President Obama...

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: ... and they should have to answer.

GUTFELD: You know what they're going to find?

GUILFOYLE: Like Lois Lerner, and they found how many other, you know...

PERINO: There is a pattern.

GUTFELD: You know what they're going to find out on Hillary's e-mail? That she was sending those chain e-mails about President Obama being born in Kenya.

BOLLING: All I need is 10 grand. I promise you'll get 20 when I get out.

ROGINSKY: I got one of those from Brian Kilmeade.

PERINO: Last week. Right? Kilmeade.

ROGINSKY: Yes.

PERINO: Bam.

GUTFELD: You should see the pictures he sends me. Oh, my gosh.

GUILFOYLE: But you sent him money.

PERINO: But you ask for those.

GUTFELD: That is true.

Political correctness just trumps safety on one college campus. That's next on "The Five."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: The University of Minnesota has caved to PC pressure by making a major change to its security policy on campus. The school says it's no longer including race in descriptions of suspects in crime alert e-mails unless there are more details to help identify the suspect or group of suspects.

The decision came after weeks of student-led protests, claiming the old policy led to unfair stereotypes.

All right. I'm going to take this around the table. What do you -- your mouth is open already.

ROGINSKY: My mouth is open because I'm shocked.

GUILFOYLE: You scared me for a second.

ROGINSKY: No, my mouth is open because I'm shocked. Look, if somebody wanted to arrest me and describe me in detail, they should be able to do that, using my ethnicity, using whatever distinguishing characteristics I may or may not have. That should be the case for everybody. The point is to apprehend people. And, you know, physical appearance is part of that apprehension. It's the most important part.

BOLLING: So can they profile you at the airport?

ROGINSKY: Can they profile me at the airport?

BOLLING: You're suggesting was that it's OK if they want to arrest you using your ethnicity and all, physical profile. Could they do that for, I don't know, people who have more -- who have -- could they do that at the airport?

GUILFOYLE: Tread carefully here.

ROGINSKY: Tread carefully. What are you talking about here? No, but look, if they -- profiling is different. If I identify...

BOLLING: Look, isn't that what you just...

ROGINSKY: No. Because if I say that somebody did...

BOLLING: After the crime...

ROGINSKY: Somebody fitting Eric Bolling's description; this is what he looks like.

BOLLING: Before or after matters?

ROGINSKY: This is what he looks like. Look, if I'm a terrorist, I know what you're getting at. If I'm a terrorist, I'm not going to be dumb enough to put somebody dressed in a full abaya on a plane. I'm going to get Dana Perino to strap a bomb on. That's...

PERINO: And that's why you have random attacks, because she just might have done that.

ROGINSKY: Yes. There you go.

BOLLING: So then we take it one step further. Stop and frisk. Which would go against your profile where the crime has to happen before you can profile...

ROGINSKY: But you're talking about this particular thing...

BOLLING: I know. I'm expanding it.

ROGINSKY: Oh, you're expanding it.

GUILFOYLE: Well, stop and frisk, again, FYI, is legal, OK. New York, I was being weird. Dana.

PERINO: I agree. If there is a crime, and you're trying to find a suspect, and it could be a matter of a lot of urgency and you're trying to warn people or either -- alert us to this person or be concerned if you see this person -- you have to have some sort of way to describe them.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Right. What about Virginia Tech? Don't talk about -- right? I mean, you have to have the right suspect description, especially if somebody is running around or has a gun. Come on. This is so crazy.

PERINO: Like a bad experiment.

GUILFOYLE: They're endangering everyone's public safety on that campus by bowing to this and being ridiculous.

GUTFELD: What is wrong with you?

GUILFOYLE: A lot.

GUTFELD: A lot. I think that you guys are so -- you're so racist. I don't think it should stop there. I don't think it should stop there. Did I just cut you off?

PERINO: No. Not at all.

GUTFELD: I'm sorry. What's your name again?

No, the thing that -- why does it have to be -- whenever they say it's an adult male or it's just -- why does it have to be male? Why do we have to talk about gender?

PERINO: Say it's an adult?

GUTFELD: Yes, say it's an adult. How hetero-normative is that? And the assumption that it is always a male. It could be a woman with really short hair and a muscular female. It's disgusting that we assume it's a guy.

And also, a lot of times we call criminals animals. Well, what if literally they were animals? The fact is, we shouldn't even be calling them humans. We should be calling them undocumented earthlings so we don't offend animals that might be committing crimes, as well.

ROGINSKY: Did you get drunk before the show?

GUTFELD: No, I'm pointing out -- It's called absurdity.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

GUTFELD: There used to be -- intelligent things used to come from the campus. Now it's a fire hose of foolishness.

PERINO: Yes, right.

GUTFELD: This is just nuts. So when you're faced with nuts, try to take it as far as you can go.

BOLLING: You can't say race...

GUILFOYLE: Be prepared to get sued when the rapist goes out and rapes someone else, because you don't want to give an accurate description.

GUTFELD: By the way, the victim -- we should punish the victim if they actually use skin pigment in the description, right? Isn't that the end result?

PERINO: Yes.

BOLLING: What about heavy-set? Can you say heavy-set?

GUTFELD: Oh, that's terrible. Awful. You know the height? Why are they doing height? Why do heights? That's offensive to me. But all those, average height. They say a man of average height. All those...

GUILFOYLE: You're a man of...

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: I'm saying that it always says average build.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: You stand for the guys of average height?

GUTFELD: Yes. They said average build. How dare you?

PERINO: ... maybe.

GUILFOYLE: I was just trying to throw in a few more offensive things along the way.

Coming up, do you find it hard to resist that second glass of wine when you're out at a bar? Well, we're going to tell you why stopping at just one drink might help your chances with who you're trying to get, of whatever sex. After this.

GUTFELD: What's happening?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROGINSKY: Many of us drink alcohol, yes, to loosen up when we're out on dates.

GUILFOYLE: That was a little...

ROGINSKY: Yes. But there -- I need a drink. But there's a fine line between how you feel versus how you actually look.

According to a new study, people look more attractive after one glass of wine than they do completely sober. But hat all changes with the second glass, as people are seen as less attractive than when sober. Beer goggles, I believe, exist. What they're saying is beer goggles exist, but after the second glass, you're slobbering; you're drunk and you look terrible. And so therefore, maybe you should turn it off after the second drink?

I'm...

GUILFOYLE: Why are you looking at me?

ROGINSKY: I'm looking at you, Kimberly. I'm looking at you because you're out there in the world.

GUILFOYLE: In the world.

ROGINSKY: Having drinks.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Well, I mean, I like red wine.

ROGINSKY: That's all you're going to have to say about that?

GUILFOYLE: OK. You like red wine. I'd go out with Dana after one glass of red wine.

PERINO: That's very responsible. No, I can drink a lot of wine. I had a little situation this weekend, though, where I was given some blueberry moonshine sauce to put over ice cream...

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God, you're telling this?

PERINO: ... and I loved it. But I got -- it just destroyed me. And I then got sick, and I will never have blueberry moonshine sauce again. But I loved it at the moment. But nobody looked more attractive to me. And I'm sure I didn't look more attractive at all.

GUILFOYLE: Now you have a conditioned food aversion in your amygdala...

PERINO: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: ... that triggers. If you smell or see that, you're going to feel sick and freak out.

ROGINSKY: The science on this is really sketchy.

There's a trend here in New York, and I have a friend who we were talking about this during the break, who wants to pitch a reality show called "To Catch a Cougar," because there are women of a certain age who get really wasted. And Greg, I know you know this, because you troll the bars.

GUTFELD: Yes, I do.

ROGINSKY: They get wasted -- they get wasted. Then they go after hot men like yourself. And unattractively so, I might add.

GUTFELD: It's something that I have to deal with constantly. And I'd rather not talk about it. It's not about how you look when you drink. It's about how other people look when you're drunk.

By the way, this study misses the point. It's like baldness. It skips generations. The first drink you look good, second drink you look bad, third drink you look great. Fourth drink bad, fifth drink great.

ROGINSKY: You're throwing up in the toilet bowl.

PERINO: Who can drink six drinks?

GUILFOYLE: Bolling.

BOLLING: No problem.

GUTFELD: That's what it is.

GUILFOYLE: Vodkas to the face (ph).

BOLLING: Is -- are they trying to say your first drink you -- your inhibitions come down and then the second one you're distorted?

ROGINSKY: No, they're saying that...

BOLLING: Your view of the other person is distorted?

ROGINSKY: They're saying you don't look as good after your second drink.

BOLLING: Oh. I misread the study. I thought as I drink...

ROGINSKY: It's probably because you're wasted and you don't look so good after you're wasted.

BOLLING: After my first drink I start to look worse?

ROGINSKY: No, you look good after your first drink.

GUTFELD: It's your second drink.

BOLLING: Come on.

GUILFOYLE: No, but you're still tan. You're still tan.

BOLLING: What happens after six or seven?

ROGINSKY: You're in a bathroom -- you're in a bathroom and I'm holding your hair. You're throwing up.

GUILFOYLE: I mean, honestly.

Yes, but if you have a good tan you can even get away with, like, more than one or two.

ROGINSKY: So you're saying airbrushing is the key to the study.

I love how they, by the way, have people in the study that "volunteered" at the University of Bristol to get drunk.

PERINO: Of course. And this -- all studies like this originate in Britain because drinking is the No. 1 past-time.

GUILFOYLE: Maybe people flirt a little bit better when they're a little loosened up...

GUTFELD: Of course.

GUILFOYLE: ... and they're buzzed a little.

GUTFELD: Alcohol is necessary for creation. It's for love, for marrying and procreation. There are many, many people, billions of people who are too shy to approach other people who ask them out.

GUILFOYLE: You're right.

GUTFELD: So alcohol is the lubricant for...

GUILFOYLE: It's the social elixir.

GUTFELD: Yes.

ROGINSKY: And now we know how Greg Gutfeld got married. "One More Thing" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: All right. Time for "One More Thing." And Greg kicks it off.

GUTFELD: It's time for this...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: The Gretchen Carlson Backwards Walking Olympics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: This is amazing. I'm sure maybe you don't know this, but Gretchen Carlson is officially the world's greatest backward walker. Let's go to the latest competition, where she has been backward walking every single day for the past three months.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh.

GUTFELD: It's been unbelievable. It's like she has eyeballs in the back of her head. She has yet to fall down once.

Interesting fun fact: When you walk backwards, you do not burn calories.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God.

GUTFELD: You actually gain weight when you walk backwards, because you're re-taking the calories.

What? No, it's a joke, Kimberly. Relax, for gosh sakes.

Anyway, she's actually going to go to China 2016 to compete.

BOLLING: Very nice. Well done. In the news person category.

GUTFELD: Yes, yes.

BOLLING: Dana, you're up.

PERINO: OK. In the "things that make you go aw" category, a blind dog was rescued in Alaska. It was lost for two weeks. It had wandered away from his home. And its name is Madeira. It's 11 years old. And the owner was, of course, very worried.

And another dog owner heard it whining. This is two weeks later. It lost 14 pounds, but it is healthy and reunited with its owner, Ed Davis.

GUTFELD: Does the dog know that it's blind?

PERINO: Probably not.

GUTFELD: There you go.

PERINO: Going to keep me up all night.

BOLLING: All right, K.G.

PERINO: I don't know.

GUILFOYLE: This is the weirdest show ever.

I love the law. I love a judge with a firm ruling. Judge Judy is amazing. And she's so amazing it's just -- she's very successful, very rich. It's in its 19th season. Good for her, though. I love it. This is a great show.

PERINO: Great. People love that show.

GUILFOYLE: International brand. Yes. So this is a show that I guess for the past, what, even like five some odd years No. 1 daytime talk show by far, by far. She kills everybody, even Dr. Phil.

GUTFELD: Really?

PERINO: I liked her book, too. It was good.

GUILFOYLE: No. 1 daytime TV show. I love her.

BOLLING: All right. They want me to move on. I think she made something like 45 million bucks a couple years ago.

PERINO: Yes, she's unbelievable.

BOLLING: All right. Jon Stewart is retiring from "The Daily Show"...

GUILFOYLE: Forty-seven million. A year.

BOLLING: Forty-seven million. There you go. Jon Stewart is retiring from "The Daily Show," but he may have a future. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't know what it's like to be me, Stewart. You don't think I learned anything?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stewart went wild (ph)!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: That was on "Monday Night Raw" with Seth Rollins.

OK, Julie. You're up.

ROGINSKY: So in the -- my worst nightmare come true to life is a place off the island of -- off Japan called Aoshima that has 20 humans living on it and like 120 cats.

GUTFELD: Oh, my goodness.

ROGINSKY: Which is disgusting, I think. Because I'm deathly allergic to cats. And I also think it's kind of scary because this place, it's like Alfred Hitchcock.

PERINO: They must have a no-kill policy.

BOLLING: That's where Greg gets all those videos.

ROGINSKY: Look at that.

BOLLING: We've uncovered your source.

GUTFELD: It's a video mill. That's all we do there is film cat videos nonstop.

ROGINSKY: That is my worst nightmare right there. I want to share it with all of you.

GUILFOYLE: Wow, that's really weird.

GUTFELD: You know what, though? That is better than the musical "Cats." I'd rather see that than the musical, "Cats."

ROGINSKY: I'm with you. I'm with you.

PERINO: If that's your worst nightmare, things are pretty good.

ROGINSKY: Things are good in my life, but cats...

GUILFOYLE: I didn't know you were allergic to cats. That's interesting.

ROGINSKY: Why is it interesting?

GUILFOYLE: Well, it's actually good for you. Probably get some...

BOLLING: We've got -- we gots [SIC] to go.

GUILFOYLE: ... dates. You're not a weird cat lady.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Set your DVRS. Don't miss an episode. "Special Report" is on deck.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.