Sen. Marco Rubio on nuclear negotiations with Iran, potential presidential run

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 30, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

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

A big show for you tonight -- likely 2016 contender Marco Rubio is here with us and we're hoping the Senator might break some news on the presidential race. No pressure.

But first, as tomorrow, a deadline approaches on the nuke deal with Iran, concerns about our detouring (ph). The White House is trying to assure Americans about the president's foreign policy strategy overall.


JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The fact is the president at every turn has taken steps by building the international community support for policies that actually are in the best interests of the United States. And whether that's bringing the international community to the negotiating table, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, or building a coalition of more than 60 countries including a number of large Arab countries, to launch air strikes against ISIL, to try to eliminate the extremists threat that exist in the Middle East, these are steps that the president's taken, consistent with our national interest.


GUILFOYLE: But Obama's former Intel chief offering this assessment.


LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN, FORMER DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY DIR: Let me just by saying as an intelligence officer, intelligence has to be part of the calculus of every strategic level of decision. And right now, I don't -- I -- my sense of where the policy is at is it's sort of -- and I hate to say it like this but, it's almost a policy of willful ignorance. Here we are talking to Iran about a nuclear deal with this almost complete breakdown of order in the Middle East.


GUILFOYLE: OK, so Senator Rubio, to be guest in the house tonight on THE FIVE. First question to you. What do you make of this commentary? What really is -- a should be our foreign policy with respect to --

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA.: That's actually a very accurate commentary, first of all, which we know the true nature of the Iranian regime. It's a government run by a radical Shia cleric, a nation that is shown that is looking to develop a weapon program. And here's how you know that. Number one, they are developing long-range rockets. You don't build an ICBM unless you want to put a nuclear warhead on it. Second, we've known that they've always had a secret enrichment program and a secret nuclear program, and to some extent, one wonders if they still have that today. And the third thing that you're saying, happen now in this negotiations is the 12-hour as a gift close to crunch time. They are now making new demands or walking away from things that perhaps, they agreed to in the past because, they sense that the administration wants to deal so badly, that they have the upper hand and insisting on additional things. They are looking to create as much ambiguity and even loopholes in these deals as possible that they intend to exploit over the next few years, the Iranians.

GUILFOYLE: All right, Eric, do you have a question for Senator?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: So, let's take a tour. So, we're fighting against the Iranians in Yemen, we're kind of fighting with them in Iraq, and then against them again in Syria. Is there a one policy towards Iran that we should stick with it? Are they our enemy or they -- someone we need to --

RUBIO: Clearly, our enemy. And let me tell you the choices that should made to them. You can have an economy or you can have a weapon, but you can't have both, and that is the fundamental choices that should have been made to them very clearly. You talk about Iraq for a moment, it's a misnomer to say we're fighting alongside them and I know that's what two people believe. Iran does not want the United States involve in Iraq. The Shia militia on the ground in Iraq that is under the control of the Iranians, do not want the United States there, we were to put ground troops there. They would to put ground troops there, they would have attack our ground troops, and -- in fact, the Iran -- they've got in so awhile, that many of those Shia militia actually believes the U.S. created ISIS and ably we're funding and arming and equipping ISIS. So, the notion is not -- and by --one last point. Iran, the ambitions in Iraq are not ours, ours is for peaceful stable Iraq. Theirs is to dominate Iraq, because just one more piece in the regional puzzle defines to put together, where they become the dominant regional power at our expense and the expense of all there maybe.

BOLLING: So maybe pushing the Iranians out of Iraq?

RUBIO: I think if we got involved, the earlier, the Iraqis would not have been so independent on Iranian influence and Iranian assistance in order to do some of the things they have done. And by the way, the Shia militias are now the lead ground forces in Iraq. It's not even the Iraqi army. And those Shia militias are not just interested in driving ISIS out, they are interested in taking over the Sunni cities and dominating them permanently of the expense of the Sunni were coming back.

GUILFOYLE: Julie, go.

JULIE ROGINSKY, "The Five" SHOW GUEST CO-HOST: My question about that Senator, that's a good point. But, we went into Iraq over a decade ago, and Iraq was a great counterweight to Iran, back when Saddam Hussein was there, that guy he was. So won't you think having gone into Iraq, we're these that empower Iran to then, be able to have that's sphere of influence which that they did not have before we went in there in the first place. Was it a mistake to go to war to Iraq?

RUBIO: No, I don't believe --


RUBIO: The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein does not in Iraq. Here's what I think might have happened, had we not gone. And you might had an arms race to put Iraq in Iran, they are both would purse the weapon. I will be dealing with two problems, not just one. We forget that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, was an open defiance of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, that the United Nations refused to enforce. They were, they were, they were refused to comply with allowing inspectors in. Repeatedly, this was a country whose leader had gassed his own people on numerous occasions. So I think, Hindsight is always 20/20, but we don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was still there. But I doubt it would look better in terms of -- it will be worst -- or we are just bad for different reasons. I think it's very difficult to predict, I think -- a better notion is, at the end of the Iraq war, Iraq had an opportunity to have a stable, peaceful future. The U.S. pulled out, completely abandoning it to Maliki, who then proceeded to move forward on these very aggressive strategies against the Sunni. Creating the intellectual and -- environment, that allowed ISIS to come back in and take advantage of what's happening.

ROGINSKY: So, I'm sorry, Senator. You actually believe that Saddam Hussein was pursing nuclear weapons?

RUBIO: No, I believe that Saddam -- well, Saddam Hussein was an open violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, including not allowing inspectors to come in on the ground, et cetera, and the world refused to enforce it. So that, that's another point that means to be remembered that after time of that invasion, Saddam Hussein was an open defiance of numerous Security Council resolutions to refuse to comply with.


DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: I have a question on the politics of it. So, President Obama has been aggressively seeking a deal with Iran, and over -- after this morning, in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that as part of the lobbying strategy on behalf of the White House is to call Democrats and say, you are either with President Obama on this deal or you only care about strengthening the Republican majority. We help -- why - - I actually ask you this. Is that working with Democrats? Or, do you think that congressional involvement in this is going to be able to move forward because, 75 percent of the American people say they want Congress to weigh in.

RUBIO: Yeah. I think eventually it's going to work and as of eventually, I believe my democratic colleagues in the Senate will give us a veto-proof majority, especially --

PERINO: Request (ph)

RUBIO: Especially, if this deals turns out as bad as we anticipate it will be. I think the argument, the White House has been using is, if you get involved now, before the deal is final and the deal collapses, you'll be blamed for it. And I think some Democrats have gotten scared by that argument. But ultimately, if this deal produces what we believe it's going to produce, which is some level of a right to enrich, I think that Democrats will rebel. And by the way, at one more point that needs to be made, this negotiation is not just for Iran. We're also negotiating a deal for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. The Saudis have made very clear, whatever Iran gets, we're going to get.

GUILFOYLE: Right. It has far-reaching implications. Greg, follow up?

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Yeah, one -- one comment. I think what Julie is trying to say, is that dictators may be cruel but Islamic religious extremist that replaced them are apocalyptic. So once we found out what came in there, it makes everything look different. I disagree but I think that what is you are trying to say.

ROGINSKY: Well, sort of.

GUTFELD: Yeah. It is underlying driver of Obama's foreign policy basically just to shrink our footprint? The fact that we were too big and we were failing and he wanted to bring - he want to turn a Cadillac into a moped?

RUBIO: Yeah.

GUTFELD: Is not what this is about?

RUBIO: So the underling argument that he has in the Middle East is that this is a grievance-based process -- problem. In essence, these groups in there, whether it's Iran or the radical jihadist, have grievances against us. And we just stop doing the thing --


RUBIO: That make them agree, they'll be better. That's not the truth. The truth is that they are not grievance-based problems they have on, this are ideological-based problems. This is pretty simple ideology, they want everyone to worship like they do or die.


RUBIO: And they view us in a short term as a threat to their regional ambitions. But in the long term, once they are done conquering the region, they intend to come for Europe and ultimately, the United States. They've made that very clear, when they say that, we should believe them. They've never said anything they have an ultimately acted on.


BOLLING: So, so, if that's the case, what's the answer? Is it military? Is it financial sanctions? Is it both?

RUBIO: Well, which problem are we talking about?

BOLLING: It is something about Iran. It seems --

RUBIO: Well --

BOLLING: At the center of all of them.

RUBIO: Well, first of all, the sanctions are important and must continue in fact, I think they should be even increased more so than we have already, and that's one of the proposals before the Senate now. So again, the fundamental choice, you can have an economy, or you can have a nuclear weapon, but you cannot have both. Beyond that, we should never ever take off the table, the notions that are maybe necessary to conduct some sort of military -- military strikes against their nuclear ambitions. I'm not cheering for that, I'm not asking for that today, but I am saying that is a real option, because that is how serious the Iranian nuclear threat is.

GUILFOYLE: All right. And we've got to move on to another subject that everybody want to hear about it. How we want to Senator Rubio about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal. Latest news is that she wiped her private server clean of all the e-mails she sent as secretary of state. But before we do, here's a Democrat who could be getting ready to take her on in 2016. Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley.


MARTIN O'MALLEY, FORMER MARYLAND GOVERNOR: I think that our country always benefits from new leadership and new perspectives and then -- let's be honest here, the presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families. It is an awesome and sacred trust that to be earned and exercised on behalf of the American people.


GUILFOYLE: All right, lots of discussion, Senator, about the legality or illegality thereof -- Hillary Clinton doing this, depriving the people, the tax payers of those public records, your thoughts. RUBIO: So she claims that all of the e-mails that have anything to do with the State Department have been turned over to the State Department. So now, let's see what the State Department produces. I think the bigger issue on the one that I focus on is, it's not so much the e-mails and the traffic, it's whether there was sensitive -- even if it isn't classified. Sensitive information regarding U.S. diplomacies, strategic views et cetera that were contain in those e-mails. If you are using a private server, you make them susceptible to foreign -- foreign espionage.

We know for a fact that multiple nations and even some non-state actors are constantly looking to have access to all sorts of drivers and all sorts of technology that are used by government all leaders, even candidates. And if there was anything in those e-mails that was sensitive in nature, not just -- and classified, God forbid, but even sensitive. I think it puts national security at risk and that's an important question that needs to be answer. Was she insecure in the way she used her communication?


GUTFELD: Can I -- follow up on this? What blows my mind about this is that, there are no -- where do Woodward and Bernsteins in this whole story? Because this to me -- the fact that she wiped her -- the server clean, it's a pretty big deal. I can't believe that nobody is trying to win a Pulitzer on this. Where are they?

RUBIO: Well, I don't know. I mean, you have to ask the Washington Post or whoever -- wherever the name of reporters that cover these things are. All right, look. There's been some media attention on that I agree, that the questions that you ask are legitimate ones. But again, I go back to the fundamental question and that is, as secretary of state, even -- no, communications with the own staff could contain sensitive information. I can give a diplomatic strategic advantage to an adversary or even a security advantage. And I think that's the fund question here is, was she responsibly using these electronic communication vehicles in a way that put national security at risk.

GUTFELD: Would you want to run against her? Because you know this, this issue is so devastating? I think it is.

RUBIO: Well, I think she has bigger problems than e-mails.

GUTFELD: Really?

RUBIO: Yeah. I mean ultimately, I don't think she has an agenda that looks forward to the 21st century and the opportunities we have, and she's a chief architect of a foreign policy that I think that has been a disaster for the country.

ROGINSKY: I guess this is -- this is the question for everybody and any position of influence. Do you have a private server or private e-mail that you ever use or --

RUBIO: Sure. But I don't put sensitive information on there and I'm not then, I'm not involved in, in you know, communicating with my staff about things that put the diplomacy of the United States at risk. In fact, I don't write anything that is national security related on an e-mail, because I know that they are potentially targets for foreign adversary.

ROGINSKY: And this is not directed to you, but I think directed to anybody who would give that quite answer, would you be able to then, disclose all your private e-mails so that you can assure people with that.

PERINO: That's a great question.

RUBIO: Well --

PERINO: That's a great question to a senator. Like a sitting senator who like -- no, he's asking Hillary that question.

ROGINSKY: Sure, they are.

PERINO: You're actually asking -- no. There's -- first of all, Hillary Clinton is not answering any questions to anybody of any sort. In addition, the reporting that I think is more troubling, besides the fact that she didn't follow federal law, which is to do all official communication on a government server, personal or otherwise, but it's that there are reports that she was working on some like -- coordinating a secret spy network, out of the State Department and I can't imagine that the people at the White House are like, OK with that. Did you hear anything about that?

RUBIO: I haven't heard anything about that. I don't have a spy network in my office, for the record, either but --


RUBIO: Well -- but going back on the stuff for the computers. I mean, it's important to understand is -- you know, one thing is to be talking to your staff about pending legislation. Another thing is to be talking to an ambassador or some other senior diplomatic at the State Department about a sensitive topic involving a foreign government that could potentially be accessed by a Foreign Intelligence Agency and use against it on negotiations.

PERINO: Or they could be about to donate to your Clinton foundation.

BOLLING: And that's -- that's scenario that I think --

GUTFELD: Facebook (ph) Friday.

BOLLING: It is the one -- it's her Achilles. I think there's going to be an e-mail trail, there's going to be a conversations -- someone is going to -- come up with something, maybe a videotape where you're tying some donations to the Clinton foundation, to something she is doing overseas. All you need is that and you'll be eliminated, the Democrat candidate, immediately. I -- personally, Senator, I think I'm on the right, I will be getting everyone to be highly (inaudible) for probation.

PERINO: But still the Democrats won't abandon her, and the media -- there will be never be a Woodward --

BOLLING: It would have to know.

PERINO: And Bernstein for that.

BOLLING: That was eliminator.

PERINO: I doubt it.

BOLLING: If there's a pay to play? Boy, I can't imagine that. That person will ever be --

ROGINSKY: Do you think.

BOLLING: President's list.

ROGINSKY: It was a pay to play involving? It's got a candidate that would eliminate her from public office?

BOLLING: No, no, I'm saying, I think -- I think there are - there's a smoking gun. How is that?

ROGINSKY: Oh, really? Well, see.

BOLLING: I think there's a Hillary Clinton smoking gun.

ROGINSKY: Well, see -

GUILFOYLE: She has numerous problems. So there will be plenty for the voters to make a very --

GUTFELD: Smoking server.

GUILFOYLE: Learning decision on.

BOLLING: That's true.

GUILFOYLE: All right. Don't go away. Because -- guess this guy, Senator Rubio is staying with us. Remember how he's got a big event planned on April 13, and we're going to ask him if he has something to do with 2016. That's next.


PERINO: Right. As Marco Rubio about to enter the 2016 race, the senator has something big plan on April 13. This report, that he reserved the Freedom Tower in downtown Miami for an undisclosed event. Could it be for a presidential announcement? And since he's here, I will turn and ask you. Is that to make an announcement? RUBIO: Well, we haven't reserved the specific site yet, that I will confirm on that. But I will announce on April 13th what I'm going to do next, in terms of running for president or the U.S. senate. So we're going to formally announce that on the 13th, and the --

PERINO: So you will announce that you're running for president?

RUBIO: I'll announce something on April 13 that I hope you all watch.

PERINO: But you -- are you not going to have an announcement that you are not going to run?

GUILFOYLE: But he's going to come back on The Five. That's the announcement.

RUBIO: Right.


ROGINSKY: But maybe that - big senator re-election right? It could be a big kick off?

RUBIO: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: Exactly?

RUBIO: Or you have to tune in on April 13.

ROGINSKY: I'm trying to help you out here. I'm trying to save you.

RUBIO: All right, well --

BOLLING: At the freedom Tower, reserving the Freedom Tower for this.

PERINO: Well it is -- that's huge news and -- we're glad that you were here to shed people like us.

RUBIO: Yeah. People want more detail then go on and they can gain access to both tickets to let them come on to our event and gives us more detail about it. But I'm looking forward to it.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, but you have a lot of support. Obviously, people are very excited about the prospect of your candidacy and what they feel that you can provide -- you know, to the to the American people with respect to your policies, your ideology, especially -- you know, juxtapose to host that what we have right now.

RUBIO: Well, the country is really at a hinge point, in terms of moving forward to the future. We are really transitioning for out of the 20th, well into the 21st century, dramatically different world. Globalization has changed. The nature of our economy, technology has changed. The nature of work, the entire global order that we've had since the end of World War II is now influx, and I think it's really important that we move in the right direction as a country, but not just confronting the challenge of this new era, but by embracing it's opportunities. And so again, I'll be very excited about April 13th and talk to you more about that with my friends and supporters and, I just encourage everyone to go to and get more details in the days to come.

BOLLING: So Senator, very too, very popular GOP, Republicans coming from Florida, you and Jeb Bush. A lot of people would say, some of the money that goes into a GOP candidate, you too will be fighting for that those same dollars. Can you tell me what distinguishes you from Jeb Bush? Why should someone pick up over Jeb Bush?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, I'm not a declared candidate for anything yet. So, I would --

BOLLING: If you were?

RUBIO: Let me just say, were -- the time will come for comparison shopping for voters and others. I would just say that I strongly believe that the future of this country will depend on the next election. And what's at stake in 2016 is not simply what party is going to win, or what candidate is going to run. The fundamental question for in 2016 is what kind of country do we want to be in this new century? Do we want to remain an exceptional country? A land of equality of opportunity, the strongest nation on earth, or are we prepared to diminish and decline? And decline is a choice. It's not our destiny. So I think in order to transition to that new better 21st century, what I think will be another American century. This nation is need of leadership that understands this new era and has new ideas for a new -- a new age and -- so, again, I'm looking forward to talking about that and many other things on April 13th.

GUTFELD: How do you respond to somebody who over the immigration issue will say you're stocked in at immigration, because you know that's what's going to happen.

RUBIO: I think I'm realistic on immigration. The two things that are clear, one, we have a problem that needs to be fix and address, what we have today is not sustainable. And number two, we can't do it all at once, especially because of the two executive orders, the latest one in particular. The American people will not support doing anything further on immigration until first they believe that illegal immigration in the future is under control. If that happens, I think people are willing to be very reasonable about what we do with those here now, that have been here for a long time and not that otherwise violated our laws. But until you can show them, not tell them, until you can show them that you are going to bring future illegal immigration is under control, I think it's impossible to move forward on anything else on immigration. That's just the fact that given what has happened over the last couple of years.

PERINO: Julie?

ROGINSKY: Well, you know, Indiana has been in the news a lot lately in the last couple of days and I'm wondering -- you know for me, a good way to solve that and quick way to solve that will be to add Sexual Orientations Non-Discrimination Acts and just to say it won't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation as much as we wouldn't against people who are African-American or women. Do you a person like that?

RUBIO: Well, I haven't heard that proposal before and I don't fully understand how something like that would work. I don't think Americans want to discriminate against anyone. I think the fundamental question of some of these laws is should someone be discriminated against because of their religious views. So no one here is saying that it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or a hotel, because of their sexual orientation. I think that's the consensus view on America. The flip side of it is though, should a photographer be punished for refusing to do a wedding that their faith teaches them one that is not one that is valid in the eyes of God? And so, I think these laws are trying to get on that. Obviously, it's raised a lot of debate in America about how far this law goes and what implications they would have and it's a difficult debate to have for a lot of people. But I think, the flip side of all of this debate is what about the religious liberties of Americans who do not want to feel compelled by law to provide a catering service or photography service to same sex marriage that their faith teaches are wrong.


RUBIO: And that's a valid constitutional term as well.

ROGINSKY: It is. It is. But we do have a lot right now, for example is your religion says you're opposed to into racial marriage, you can't discriminate against somebody based on that if you're a photographer. So my question I guess is, should you be able to discriminate against somebody based on their sexual --

RUBIO: Well, again, that's not the same of thing. Because here you're talking about the definition of an institution, not the -- and a value of a single human being. That's the difference between a civil right movement and then marriage equality movement. But I will go further and say that the issue we are talking here is should someone who provides the professional service. They punish by the law, because they are refuse to provide that professional service to a ceremony that they believe is in violation of their faith? I think people have a right to live it out there religiously in their own lives, they can't impose it on you in your life, but they have a right to live it out in their own lives. And when you're asking somebody who provides professional services to do something or be punished by law that violates their faith, you're violating that religious liberty that they have.

BOLLING: Senator, Can I jump in? Are we -- do you want to get in?

GUILFOYLE: No. We know (inaudible).

BOLLING: All right. I just want to change the topic a little bit. The debates, so all of the debates are going to go on, ABC has George Stephanopoulos whose going to moderate their debate. Do you think that's fair and think he'll be prohibited from moderating the ABC debate, given his time with the Clintons as spokesperson and communications director?

RUBIO: Well, you know -- obviously, I've never done a presidential debate before, I don't know if I'm going to be a candidate yet, you have to watch on April 13.


BOLLING: If, if were?

RUBIO: But I would say by enlarge, I don't personally have an issue with George Stephanopoulos, I've been interviewed by him before, I found these questions to be fair. Ultimately look, if the questions are unfair from any moderator, the public will see that. And I think you need, you need to have candidates that run for president who are able to handle to handle unfair questions.


RUBIO: But here's the truth. If you're a conservative Republican, you're going to get a lot of unfair questions from the mainstream media. So I think that's important to see as well. I personally don't have a problem with George Stephanopoulos, I've dealt with him in his past, he's always been professional but, I'm well aware of his history in the past, because he's a journalist now.

ROGINSKY: That if he doesn't care.


PERINO: But you're -- but you were in the White House and most people in the Bush administration though that they got really fair shake from him. So, I don't think that would be a problem. Can I ask you one last question before we let you go?

RUBIO: Yeah.

PERINO: What is --as you make this decision about April 13th, what has been the biggest consideration? Is that you feel like you could make a difference? You had to convince your family, your worries about the future of America? Like, what was that hinged on?

RUBIO: I honestly believe the country is at a moment in history where the choice it makes over the next four to six years is going to determine the identity of our nation moving forward. And the choice we forth is well it remain a special country, the kind of nation of equal opportunity that literally change the history of my family. I tell people all the time, America doesn't owe me anything. I have a debt to America that I will never be able to repay, but if I have an opportunity to repay it somewhat, by serving at its highest office, that's something I want to consider very seriously.

PERINO: All right well, April 13th. Make your hotel reservations now in Miami. All right, thanks for joining us, Senator.

RUBIO: Thank you.

PERINO: We will hope you'll come back -- maybe after that, April 14th. We'll see what happens on that day.

Ahead, "Saturday Night Live" shows what happens when you make the president, the Rock Obama, very angry. Stay tuned.


GUTFELD: A bat could see this coming. The emerging Bowe Bergdahl defense paints him as a sympathetic whistle blower, a Snowden on the battlefield. Yes, he wasn't really leaving his post at all, says his defense, but only heading to the nearest military post to report concerns about his unruly unit.

See, they were undisciplined, unlike Bowe, who had fled from assigned areas before. I guess the sign of obedience is skipping out and then forcing your mates to go and find you.

Of course, his platoon mates refute this, explaining that they were leaving for that very same base the next day, so why would he walk now? But he did, and now he's throwing his fellow soldiers under the Humvee. The same kind of men who risked their lives looking for him. The ones still alive, I mean.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy. In this modern world where patriotism is mocked, perhaps desertion is a distinction. Forget the court martial; give the guy a medal instead. After all, war is bad. Soldiers kill people and America's a bully. That makes Bowe a brave whistleblower, out to expose their villainy. It's a heart-tugging narrative. Does it matter if it's false? Hardly.

You just know when Hollywood writes the script, Bowe will be played by James Franco. His dad, a grubby Tim Robbins. And who will play his platoon mates? Who cares? They're the bad guys for sticking around.

So Kimberly, you are the prosecutor. Could his explanation be plausible? He was out to expose his unruly platoon mates.

GUILFOYLE: No. That doesn't work. I'm so sorry to tell you. And it's going to be military officers. They were not born yesterday or people who happened to just show up for jury duty that day that want to free someone who's guilty. This is going to be, I think, very tough to sell.

It's an unfortunate position, and the administration put us squarely in it by bringing this guy home, making it the cause celebre, you know, opening up the Rose Garden, the parents there, the whole deal. While the reality is, he personally caused American bloodshed.

GUTFELD: That's the thing, Julie, that he's kind of -- he's pointing at the very same people who risked their lives looking for him.

ROGINSKY: It's despicable.

GUTFELD: I mean, I guess that's what a defense has to do, but...

ROGINSKY: No. Look, it's despicable, and I agree that he most likely caused a lot of deaths, and he most likely deserted and all of the things that we all assume. However, he is entitled to American justice.


ROGINSKY: And I keep saying that...

GUILFOYLE: He's going to get it.

ROGINSKY: ... despite everything, that he's going to get it. I hope you're right. But he is entitled to presumption of innocence. He is entitled to American justice, despite the fact that we probably all agree that he's guilty. But it's not for us to decide that. We cannot leave him to Taliban justice. He's got to come back here and face the music here. That's -- I really feel very strongly about that.

BOLLING: You predicted this. Didn't you predict that he was going to be called a hero; there was going to be a movie?


BOLLING: But you know, is it time to cue Susa Rice to come out on the talk show circuit and say, Bowe Bergdahl, he was a whistle blower, and he served with honor.


BOLLING: So predictable. But again, as Kimberly points out, I hope he gets the max, life in prison for the -- misbehaving what the...

GUILFOYLE: There has to be accountability, you know, here. And there will be. You can't hide from the facts in this case. It's too prevalent. There's too many people were involved that were eyewitnesses to exactly what transpired. So save it for the next case.

GUTFELD: Here's my -- why doesn't he just throw himself on the mercy of the court? I have to say, it was pretty moving, when you read about what he went through, that's probably the hell that he went through which, you know, nothing can come close...

PERINO: I think that he would actually garner more sympathy from America if he stood with honor and said...


PERINO: ... that he was -- I don't know if he wants -- maybe he would say he was apologetic, but maybe he is not.

GUTFELD: Yes, yes.

PERINO: But I do have to wonder. What is it like to be his lawyers, to go in and suggest that he was the one that served with honor?


PERINO: And that the platoon mates, especially those that were killed or wounded, are the ones that do not? But if you look at the left, a lot of people, remember in Hollywood when "American Sniper" came out...


PERINO: ... that Chris Kyle was considered the villain in that story.


PERINO: But Americans, when they actually -- when it was presented to them, they actually sided with Chris Kyle in droves. So there is that.

GUTFELD: There is that.

PERINO: On the good news side.

GUTFELD: All right. The bright side.

Next, Patriots star quarterback Tom Brady leaps off a cliff, sending some of his freaked-out fans over the edge -- edge, edge -- when "The Five" returns.


BOLLING: Welcome back. Time for...



GRAPHIC: Fastest 7


BOLLING: ... the "Fastest Seven Minutes on Television." Three peaking (ph) stories, seven pointed minutes, one propitious host.

First up, Duane "The Rock" Johnson revived his popular very angry Obama role on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend. Here's a short-fused President Obama tossing around some wimpy Republicans: John Boehner, Tom Cotton and a chubby Ted Cruz.



SASHEER ZAMATA, CAST MEMBER, NBC'S "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE": What's happening is you've made Barack Obama very angry. And when he make him angry, he turns into The Rock Obama.

DUANE JOHNSON, ACTOR: You, orange man.


JOHNSON: You. You invite Netanyahu without asking?

KILLAM: I did. But...

JOHNSON: You like Israel?


JOHNSON: Maybe you should go visit Israel.



BOLLING: OK, K.G. The Rock, very good job.

GUILFOYLE: The Rock is very good. I like him. Can we swap him? Can he go and play for real life?

BOLLING: In the White House?


BOLLING: What are you going to say? Hey, Greg, what about the Republicans being wimpy and thrown out windows, arms being pulled apart? Chubby?


GUTFELD: I thought this was the weakest sketch of the night. I really liked the "Weekend Update." Michael Che is -- is really, really great. I thought the concept was good but low on laughs.

ROGINSKY: I agree. I didn't think it was that funny.

GUTFELD: Yes. I know it's -- to each his own.

GUILFOYLE: It's funny. It's the Rock Obama...

GUTFELD: I get the concept, but they should have added something to the concept.

ROGINSKY: Now that you've explained it, it's hilarious.

GUILFOYLE: Help you guys out. You know, throw you a bone (ph).

PERINO: They also can never make fun of President Obama. It can't even be -- like even when they're in character, they can't be self-deprecating about Obama. It always has to be about someone else.

GUTFELD: This is a compliment.

BOLLING: See that arm being pulled off, Tom Cotton's arm being pulled off right there? Tom Cotton tweeted today, "Hey, 'SNL,' I'm the same height as The Rock." Height is the operative word.

Next up, people do wacky things on vacation. Check out the Patriots' $15 million a year franchise quarterback Tom Brady cliff jumping in Costa Rica.





BOLLING: Also noteworthy is the Superman music Brady overlaid when posting the video to his Facebook page.

PERINO: This guy loves himself. I mean, does anyone love themselves more?

BOLLING: Bozell (ph). Brent Bozell (ph).

Have you done this before?

GUTFELD: Yes. It's quite enjoyable. He's not supposed to sit in a padded room between seasons. He's got to go out and have some fun. But again, if you're a hand model, you don't go out and do construction. He basically just threw a $100 million investment over -- off the cliff.

GUILFOYLE: It's irresponsible.

GUTFELD: But it's like we all talk for a living, so theoretically, we shouldn't be eating hot food or kissing strangers.

GUTFELD: I did that, maybe not there, but I did that once in Newport, Rhode Island. That is the -- having done that, that is the stupidest thing he could have possibly done. If I were a Massachusetts, if I were a New England fan right now, I would be beside myself.


GUILFOYLE: Yes, I get it, the fans. But what about his kids? Like, that just Bergdahl's to me is so reckless.

ROGINSKY: No, it's not.

GUILFOYLE: I don't think so.

GUTFELD: Kimberly, remember what happened to Greg Brady in Hawaii?


BOLLING: He find that?

GUTFELD: Yes, that was a tiki.

BOLLING: On that little thing?

GUILFOYLE: Let along Marcia Brady playing football.

BOLLING: Finally, who doesn't enjoy Angelina Jolie, advocate for adoption, advocate for the poor? And now watch her deliver some awesome and empowering advice to children on Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards on Saturday.


ANGELINA JOLIE, ACTRESS/DIRECTOR/ACTIVIST: I want to say that when I was little, like Maleficent, I was told that I was different. And I felt out of place and too loud, too full of fire, never good at sitting still, never good at fitting in.

And then one day I realized something, something I hope you all realize: different is good. Don't fit in. Don't sit still. Don't ever try to be less than what you are; and when someone tells you that you are different, smile and hold your head up high and be proud.


BOLLING: Dana, some nice -- good advice.

PERINO: Yes. I love it. I mean, she's very appealing to all sorts of people. And can you imagine if you're a kid in the room and you get a chance to see that? Or you're watching it on TV? It means a lot.

BOLLING: Good advice to your child -- your son, right?

ROGINSKY: Great advice. I wouldn't tell him to put blood around his neck or whatever she used to do back in the day, because that's standing out a little too much. But no, I think that's actually really nice advice, even though, I of course, remain team Jennifer Aniston.

GUILFOYLE: Still, huh?

ROGINSKY: Holding a grudge.

GUILFOYLE: Holding a grudge.

ROGINSKY: I will never be over it. Never.

GUTFELD: I'm sorry. I think this is horrible. What about the kids who aren't different? What about the kids who aren't edgy? The kids who aren't boring? I mean, the kids who are boring? She's eliminating all of the other people and that, to me, is exclusionary, and she should be arrested.

ROGINSKY: They're just lame and average.


ROGINSKY: They shouldn't be out in public.

BOLLING: K.G., Angie fan?

GUILFOYLE: Yes, I am a big fan. I think what she's doing, being a spokesperson and telling a very personal example here about her medical condition is very important for women's health issues.

BOLLING: We're going to leave it right there.

Coming up, why was this 7-year-old who weighs 54 pounds sent home from school with a note about being overweight? Her mother is outraged, and you'll hear from her next.


ROGINSKY: She's 7 years old and 54 pounds and, like some other kids at her school in Belton, Missouri, Kylie Moss was recently sent home with a note about her weight. It said her body mass index was too high, and her mother, Amanda, for one, was stunned.


AMANDA MOSS, KYLIE'S MOTHER: She wanted to know if it meant that she was fat, because she saw "lose weight" on it.

Whenever she read it, she only needed help with one word, and that was body composition. When she knew that her number was bigger than the number for her age, she knew that it meant something.

It was frightening to know that a child in second grade would worry about what their body image is.


ROGINSKY: Belton's school superintendents say they calculate the BMIs of students for positive reasons to try to promote healthy habits but will allow parents to opt out of the program if they choose.

Kimberly, I'd have to go to you. I mean...

GUILFOYLE: What would you like to know?

ROGINSKY: Can you imagine being the mother of that kid who comes home and is told, "You're fat. You've got to lose some weight. Oh, by the way, I guess you could opt out" after you've already done damage to your kid by telling them that they're fat and they need to lose weight.

GUILFOYLE: No. I think it's totally inappropriate. It's psychologically damaging, insensitive. I mean, what good redeeming aspect is that kind of approach?

ROGINSKY: I guess their attitude, Greg, is that this is to try to make the kid healthier, to try to make them -- let the parents know they need to lose weight. I think this is really cruel.

GUTFELD: The untold story is the BMI is full of BM. It's a total joke. It's inaccurate. You can't judge people being overweight using the body mass index. It's just a measurement thing.

This is a war on jolly kids. Seriously. When I was growing up, the kids who were overweight were always the most fun, had the best food in the fridge, and they always grew up to become skinny adults. Most fat kids grow out of their fat. This is stupid.

ROGINSKY: I agree. But you know, Eric, you're a built guy. I'm sure your BMI is probably higher than your weight would reflect, right?

BOLLING: Absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. I agree with Greg. It's one of the worst indicators of health and proper body proportions of any of them. It's unbelievable. You know what they do when they send these notes home with these kids like this? They ruin them. These kids...

ROGINSKY: Terrible. Yes.

BOLLING: ... suffer for the rest of their lives, worrying about their own body image? I mean, at that age and almost any age, you should be embracing children's bodies. It doesn't matter what it is. Look, you're beautiful.

GUILFOYLE: Let's mess them up for the rest of their lives.

ROGINSKY: And Dana, you know, we were all teenage girls. All you do is obsess about every aspect.

PERINO: Not just teenage girls. It never ends.

I remember, it was a few years ago when the BMI thing was in all the women's magazines, and you could calculate it. And it was so demoralizing. And you'd think, oh, I really need to do something about it.

So I'm glad that it's full of you know what, because now I won't worry about it as much.


PERINO: I feel sorry for her because I do think eating disorders, the seeds of them, can be planted at a very early age. It sounds like she's got a great mom who's going to make sure that she doesn't have to worry about it.

But I think that the schools, also, are just obsessed with all of this -- all sorts of things that they actually shouldn't have to be worrying about. OK.

GUTFELD: Yes, worry about...

PERINO: So, like, nutrition and fitness levels at schools. Let's make sure everybody knows how to read.


ROGINSKY: You know, I'm OK with schools having a P.E. period, for example.

PERINO: I love P.E.

ROGINSKY: Because I think a lot of parents don't do enough to get their kids out. It's healthy. It promotes health for the kids.

But this is going too far. This is basically telling your kids, "You're fat." It's shaming. It is. It's fat shaming, and you're right. And the poor girl, or other girls like her, are going to feel...

BOLLING: Or boys.

ROGINSKY: And boys but girls even more so, I think maybe.

GUTFELD: I hated P.E.

ROGINSKY: I did, too.

GUTFELD: I hated the rope. Did you guys have the rope?

ROGINSKY: We had the rope.

PERINO: I was actually pretty good at it, but it hurt my hands.

GUTFELD: We never climbed it. We just...

GUILFOYLE: You had to wear gloves.

ROGINSKY: You just looked at it?

GUTFELD: No. It was used for all sorts of things.

ROGINSKY: Really? What did you use the rope for?

GUILFOYLE: Don't even look at him. He's crazy.

ROGINSKY: I've got to know what you used the rope for.

GUILFOYLE: Don't ask.

ROGINSKY: Twitter will tell me right now what the rope was used for in the Gutfeld household. But OK.

PERINO: I still have the record for most sit-ups, I think.

GUTFELD: Really?

ROGINSKY: Wow. All right, Dana, show-off. You probably still do.

GUILFOYLE: Core fusion.

ROGINSKY: You know what? Dana, you're making me sick.

"One More Thing" is up next.


GUILFOYLE: It's time now for "One More Thing" -- Dana.

PERINO: OK. So earlier, if you were watching or in case you missed it, Senator Marco Rubio joined us. That's unusual. We don't usually have guests on "The Five." And he made a little news about his future plans. Take a listen.


SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I will announce on April 13 what I'm going to do next in terms of running for president or the U.S. Senate. So we're going to formally announce that on the 13th.

PERINO: So you will announce that you're running for president?

RUBIO: I'll announce something on April 13, and I hope you all watch.


PERINO: I don't think he's going to hold a big announcement to say that he's not running for president.

GUILFOYLE: I think you're onto something, Dana.

PERINO: Great to have him here.

GUILFOYLE: Thanks for that hard-hitting question. I love it.

All right. Bolling.

BOLLING: So last night Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Jesus" premiere, world premiere on "Nat Geo" last night. Here's a little piece.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever, amen!





BOLLING: So the film broke records. It broke the Nat Geo record: 3.7 million people watched last night. That's up 300 percent from a normal Sunday night in primetime.

FOX is going to encore that Friday, this Friday and Sunday. And I believe it's 8 p.m. Not positive of the time, but I think it's 8 p.m. Friday and Sunday, so check it out.

PERINO: I want to watch it.

GUILFOYLE: All right. Sounds good. Winning endorsement. Greg.

GUTFELD: It's time for...


GUTFELD: "Greg's Gutfact"! With Retsyn.



GUTFELD: With Retsyn. Certs.

GUILFOYLE: The breath thing? Yes.

GUTFELD: Since you were already talking, Kimberly, how many robots do you think are alive in existence right now on the planet? How many robots?

GUILFOYLE: Well, it depends on what your definition is.

GUTFELD: Just answer the question.

GUILFOYLE: Battery powered, plug in.

GUTFELD: Robots, how many robots?


GUTFELD: Answer the question.


GUTFELD: Eight point six million robots on this planet.

GUILFOYLE: Alive? Humans are alive?

GUTFELD: By the way, the exact same population of London. Is that mind blowing?

PERINO: Wow, weird.

GUTFELD: It's, like, freaking me out right now.

GUILFOYLE: I think human beings are alive and robots are machines.

GUTFELD: No, no, no, that's where you're wrong, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Artificial intelligence.

GUTFELD: Robots are alive, and they're going to destroy you if I have my way.

GUILFOYLE: Not me. You first.

GUTFELD: Oh, please.

GUILFOYLE: I know. Now it's my turn. All right. So this is very scary, actually, as a parent because there was a 4-year-old girl who was boarding a bus alone at 3 a.m., determined to get a Slushie. So it was really -- I mean, can you imagine? She goes -- you can see her on this video here. She goes to get on the bus, and people are sort of looking at her, and she's 4 years old, and she's thirsty and alone. Big problem.

So this was in Philadelphia. But the bus driver, you know, hit the panic button to get some assistance and get this little girl, who was soaking wet, everything, had gone out on her own.

BOLLING: Where are her parents? She dressed herself.

GUILFOYLE: I know. Listen, obviously, she's very precocious, and that's the bus driver who was able to save the day. But can you imagine a little kid like that walking around? No way.

GUTFELD: Where are the parents?

GUILFOYLE: Where are the parents?

GUTFELD: What is this world coming to? Spring break!

ROGINSKY: So I just want to wish a very, very, very happy 70th birthday to Eric Clapton, my pretend high school boyfriend. I loved him so much, and I still do. And Eric, I know that you agree with me on this, because we're both classic rock fans. But I am a huge fan of his, and I just want to say...

PERINO: Seventy?

ROGINSKY: ... happy 70th birthday. Hopefully, he lives long and continues to play amazing music for the next 20 years.

GUTFELD: I love the Beatles.

ROGINSKY: Well, you know, he played on "My Guitar Gently Weeps," so good call.

BOLLING: You're calling for a Led Zeppelin reunion.

ROGINSKY: I am calling for a Led Zeppelin reunion. Robert Plant, if you're listening, please I beg of you, just do it.

BOLLING: I think Page is up for it, right?

GUILFOYLE: Do you have some influence?

ROGINSKY: I have zero influence, but I will follow him around the country if they ever get back together.

GUTFELD: I'm calling for a Kajagoogoo reunion. Are you with me?

ROGINSKY: "Shy Shy."


ROGINSKY: Great song.

GUTFELD: Maybe Jesus Jones.


GUILFOYLE: I love it. Is everybody good?

GUTFELD: "Right Here, Right Now."

GUILFOYLE: Any more reunions that we have to fulfill?

PERINO: I think I'm good. It's been a great show. Thank you.

GUILFOYLE: It has. And we want to thank Senator Rubio. That was fantastic.

So set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "The Five." That's it for us. "Special Report" is next.

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.