This is a rush transcript from "The Five," June 1, 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, Andrea Tantaros and Tom Shillue. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."
After midnight, our government lost its legal authority to collect vast quantities of phone records and its quest to find terrorists, but the Senate could act to restore the NSA controversial surveillance program as soon as tomorrow. Lawmakers failed to strike a deal in a rare Sunday night session after Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, intentionally held up his chamber's progress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are not collecting the information of spies, we are not collecting the information of terrorists, we are collecting all American citizens records all of the time. This is what we fought the revolution over. Are we going to so widely give up our freedom, or are we going to so widely go along and just say, take it? Well, I'm not going to take it anymore. I don't think the American people are going to take it anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUILFOYLE: Support is in the bill including former and current intelligence officials say the patriot act must be reauthorized to keep Americans safe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN, FORMER CIA & NSA DIRECTOR: Why would a reasonable people take off the table tools that I believe are lawful, and around which there is already a political consensus, why would we give up things? The professionals say, keeps us safer.
JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: The tools that the government has used over the last dozen years, to keep this country safe are integral to making sure that we're able to stop terrorists in their tracks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUILFOYLE: OK. So in a little bit of an ace hardware moment, even intelligent officials there saying, keep out of our tool bag, we need these forensics, data collection points to be able to track the bad guys down.
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Yes, you do. And you have some of these who are saying, you can still do that, you haven't lost any ability to do that. You can still get the phone records of anyone. The government can still get the phone government records of anyone. Even right now, after the NSA data mining mandate expired. They just don't have the right to get the phone records of everyone all at once. They'll going to need to go by the constitution that's been good for 247,000 years, right here in America. If you don't like the law, change the law, but you better do it via amending the constitution. It is very, very clear in the constitution that you need A, probable cause, and B, you need a name of the person you're going to issue the warrant to if you want to go ahead and get the information. Other than that, look, I'm very -- the strong man argument is if you're against this, you must be OK with terrorists. And no, we're not, I'm not. I think you go after him, you go after him hard, you go after -- via any means that are illegal and constitutional, which would also mean, if you think and you have probable cause that a must is talking about terror. Listen in, go ahead, find out who they're talking to, use the data, use the phone lines that they're calling, follow those people too, but those are warrantable. You can go to find in court and get those things. What all that happened last night was that the United States process said, in order to continue to data mining every single American without a warrant, you're going to come back and show them how to do that and that's what they're trying to do through the House right now.
GUILFOYLE: Right. All right, Andrea.
ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: I think that Rand Paul makes a very compelling case. I think he's probably the loudest and clearest voice on this and his concerns are warranted. I mean, besides the constitutional violations, which Eric articulated, it's also questionable that it could be effective with such a wide net. And also, I think the potential for abuse is enormous. And for people to say, "Well, you know there's no evidence that they abused it", sure, that's true. But we're living in an era where we saw the IRS target Americans for their political ideologies, and we know that in the past, FBI directors, like Edward Hoover, they've used information on people to go after them. So I think the prospect, Kimberly, for political abuse is pretty great. Although, they need the best voice on the other side of the argument, Michael is Michael Mukasey, and he paints a very -- I mean, compelling argument on why this has been working. I mean he cites one example, Kimberly, I think it's the (inaudible) incident where they used --
TANTAROS: That information to stop a subway plot. Which is, I mean that's, that's pretty good. I mean, if it spares one American, it could be worth it. But I think this is a really fascinating debate, and I'm happy that it's finally being had. I think, instead of like in a political manner, I mean, Rand Paul took it in a little bit of a political manner by saying that people wanted a terrorist attack, which I didn't like. But otherwise, it's pretty much been on substance, and I think it's about time.
GUILFOYLE: All right, Tom. How do you see it?
TOM SHILLUE, GUEST CO-HOST: I mean, I don't know if I'm -- am I alone in this? I fell like, so many people know my information, I don't, I don't mind about this data mining stuff because to me, it's not individuals, you're just looking at patterns. I mean it's not person of interest. They're not chasing people down in the streets and finding out who I'm calling, it's looking for patterns, right? And if that helps them stop an attack, I don't know if it does. But I suspect that if it does help them, it's like, when are you going to take your freedom, now or later? Because it's -- there's another attack, we're all giving up more freedom.
BOLLING: And why do you need to give up your freedom?
SHILLUE: I know we're going to give them up after an attack --
BOLLING: Are you sure that they're not going to use this information in any way she had performed that you don't like? IRS, Andrea points out the IRS scandal. We spent months on this show saying, look, if they're willing to do that, what are they not willing to do? If they are willing to target conservatives that from IRS level --
GUILFOYLE: But that's also administration specific --
BOLLING: Hold on, let me finish. What -- no. What's the difference? This is even bigger.
GUILFOYLE: Well, the IRS is under the direct of President Obama.
BOLLING: This is even -- what has it. You trust President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder -- knock yourself out, but what about Hillary, Hillary Clinton? We have a lot of questions about her transparency, her ethics, what if she's president and she says you know what? --
JULIE ROGINSKY, GUEST CO-HOST: Because --
BOLLING: I want to lean a little bit into this, a little -- these conservative groups over here. Hey, NSA. Do me a favor, I want to hear that. Is that conspiratorial? Maybe, but it's not -- look, no one thought the IRS was going to do what they did.
ROGINSKY: I'm sorry. What do you guys think --
GUILFOYLE: I know. But you don't like sacrifice the safety of the United States because you're a little bit afraid to Hillary Clinton.
BOLLING: Is that as this moment argument? Again, K.G., who wants to sacrifice the safety of the American? --
GUILFOYLE: I'm replying to what you just said, that sounded ridiculous. You're a little bit worried about Hillary Clinton. I mean the point is, they should be able to give --
BOLLING: I'm worried about the freedoms.
GUILFOYLE: Whatever it means, our lawful, to be able to affect us.
BOLLING: I'm worried about our constitutional freedoms that Americans have died for --
BOLLING: Protecting for 237 years.
GUILFOYLE: I understand. I've got news for you.
BOLLING: That's what I'm worried about.
GUILFOYLE: Because the second court of appeals said, listen, some of the things are problematic, was it -- it's already being addressed and it's going to go back into place.
ROGINSKY: So --
BOLLING: Some of them. Not necessarily --
GUILFOYLE: That's going to happen.
BOLLING: The fault of data mining of every single American. That is so --
GUILFOYLE: I understand that, but I'm telling you.
BOLLING: They are very, very much (inaudible).
GUILFOYLE: As it comes true with specificity, particular clarity and said, this is what we're going to change. We're going to make sure that it abides by all the concerns that the court's going to have and we're still going to be able to do our job to let people who are in this business that have the expertise there, more so, than any of us at the table, to say this work.
BOLLING: Can I just read this? I know. We want to get Julie in here. We have to just read how specific the fourth amendment is. This is very specific. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue about upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly, describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seize.
GUILFOYLE: Right. But that's little bit different about that --
BOLLING: But no, no.
GUILFOYLE: But I don't have time to take you through three years of law school and 15 years doing cases --
BOLLING: Because probably part of that constitution that the fourth amendment that I read is inaccurate.
GUILFOYLE: The bottom line is this is going to be a constitutional, the way that it's going to be drafted. So you have an issue, and you agree with Senator Paul regarding the three specific areas that he feels are problematic and that he wanted this to last. My point is trying to have a more global view about what's going on now with the war on terror and keeping Americans safe, and do not thwart the ability --
BOLLING: I'm on board with all of that.
GUILFOYLE: Do not thwart the ability of the intelligence officials --
BOLLING: I'm on board with fighting terrorist that does everywhere. GUILFOYLE: To be able to collect the information, so that they then can do go with specificity to go and knock on the door of somebody --
BOLLING: They can do that.
ROGINSKY: All right. First of all, they can do that right now.
ROGINSKY: They can go to fight the court, retroactively. They can fight -- if Eric Bolling for some reason is somebody they want to focus on, they can data -- bottom line you right now, and then --
BOLLING: Of course I can, Just name me.
ROGINSKY: And then retroactively --
ROGINSKY: Go file in the court --
GUILFOYLE: They absolutely get --
ROGINSKY: To get a warrant.
GUILFOYLE: How about the circumstances where times of the essence and (inaudible) --
ROGINSKY: They can do it.
GUILFOYLE: And then --
BOLLING: They can go with to the companies.
ROGINSKY: They can --
GUILFOYLE: I know --
BOLLING: By the way --
ROGINSKY: They could do right away.
BOLLING: These documents aren't going away. These are still being held by the individual internet companies and phone companies. They're told to hold. They have to hold that data.
GUILFOYLE: Talking about timeliness.
BOLLING: Go ahead and use it at their way.
ROGINSKY: But timeliness is they can do it in a timely manner and then, they can go back to file in court afterwards, and get a warrant. That's how ridiculous this. They don't even have to do it beforehand. They can do attractively (ph).
TANTAROS: To Eric's point, I mean, we talk about the prospect for potential abuse which we've already seen the IRS do. We know that if it's in the wrong hands like, oh I don't know. A Sidney Blumenthal needs an inspiration.
ROGINSKY: Or Richard Nixon.
TANTAROS: Listen, it's already happening. It's already happening. I pulled up an article from Reuters from last year. This was in the U.S., via the DEA was directing its agents to cover up a program that it's using to investigate Americans. So what they're doing is they're using intercepts through the NSA, to go after people they perceive are the bad guys, and then they don't have to tell the defense or the prosecution how they got that information. It's not the way that government's supposed to work.
BOLLING: I'll give you one more. And it's been about two years ago, they found, there were certain agents, I believe they're NSA agent's operators.
BOLLING: Who were using the data that they mined to check up on their girlfriends activities or the wives activities.
GUILFOYLE: All right. But this is said that you're talking about one ridiculous example.
BOLLING: It's not that ridiculous, Kimberly. That's my whole point.
GUILFOYLE: Example of police officer looking up girls --
TANTAROS: But how come you know that?
GUILFOYLE: You know, phone numbers, like running the plates. Let's just get a little bit more serious about what's at hand here. Let's listen, take a look. In some of this, this is political, right? There's people making accusations, people are going to put political granting. Let's see what some of the 2016 GOP hopefuls have to say about this data collection.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEB BUSH, FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: The first duty of our national government is to protect the Homeland, and this has been an effective tool along with many others, and the patriot act ought to be reauthorized, as is. You know, you have people just making things up that the NSA is sitting and listening to people's conversations, they are not. And the fact is we want them to be connecting those dots.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The next time that any politician, Senator, congressman, talking head. Whatever it may be, stands up and says that the U.S. government is listening to your phone calls or going through your phone records -- they're lying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUILFOYLE: All right. Let's pull this up because the question is someone who's running for the office, president of the United States and trying to guard the GOP vote, full screen here, should renew the NSA data collection, 73 percent of Republicans that were polled in favor of it should not renew 23 percent. So -- Eric, I'll take it back to you. So Senator Rand Paul is really -- this is something he believes and he's been consistent about that.
BOLLING: It is not something about Rand Paul. I think K.G., it's not --
GUILFOYLE: No. But I have to finish the question.
BOLLING: OK. Go ahead.
GUILFOYLE: He's been right on in front on this, but he has been consistent. This is something he's believed, I've been very strong on for a long time. But this has runs the risk of really -- perhaps, compromising his chances.
BOLLING: You know if there is another poll out, I believe it was either today or Friday where it showed the breakdown of people who are for, who think that the country will be affected negatively by this expiration of this program. And it splits almost evenly, 52 to 48 percent. I think 52 said the same risks will going to be after -- we were going to experience the same type of risk. But when you break it down by age, clearly younger people, people under the age of -- I believe, 35-years-old had a higher skewed thinking that they want this program to expire, they didn't think the country was going to be any less safe with the program going away. Older people in generally, above 65 thought we were going to be substantially more at risk with the program going away. The point is -- I think younger people are getting that -- we don't trust the government. We don't trust them. They don't know what they're going to do, and therefore, I don't want them to have stuff on me. I have no terror ties whatsoever. You don't have -- you shouldn't be anywhere near my stuff.
GUILFOYLE: They're not going to look and listen to your stuff. That it's considered colorful as it might be.
BOLLING: They did already K.G. They have -- the entire of the American public --
GUILFOYLE: That they are not --
BOLLING: Data mining.
GUILFOYLE: Listening. They have enough to do. They're not focusing in on Eric Bolling.
ROGINSKY: How do you know?
GUILFOYLE: Or your snapshot or whatever.
SHILLUE: What the irony of those numbers is the young people are the ones who are giving away all their information. They are the ones who are on snapshot, they are the ones who have -- you know Google knows everything they're doing. I searched the other day, I clicked on -- I was looking for breathable men's brief, you know breathable underwear --
SHILLUE: Now there's underwear all over my screen.
GUILFOYLE: Do you have a sweaty situation?
SHILLUE: Now what? Look, I just thought - you know, it's coming to summer. I want some nice breathable cotton. Anyway, there's underwear all over my computer because they --
BOLLING: Do you ever think on listening to sweater?
ROGINSKY: This is the whole new segment right here.
TANTAROS: I'm going to say that. Were you comfortable giving out information to the American public?
GUILFOYLE: I hear the point that you're making, it's everybody's giving it out.
SHILLUE: Well, that -- I might as well. It's everyone's -- who would know.
SHILLUE: You know every time you click on something, they know. So, I'm saying that America's companies know what we're doing. The idea that the government is -- and that is personalized information, they do know I want the breathable cotton --
ROGINSKY: But --
SHILLUE: But the government is just looking for patterns as well.
ROGINSKY: Let my say this, we're talking about politics here. We are talking about the fact that you know all this politicians came out, this is atrocious, this is horrible -- Mitch McConnell, who has been the biggest proponent of this program in the Senate, could have gotten this done a week ago, but instead he decided to give all those senators there, I'm talking to you Rand Paul and a bunch of other people and actually, Marco Rubio, who is so into this -- the week off. So the reason this program expired is because the Senate decided to go into recess and now they're panicking. If this is such a big deal --
BOLLING: Yeah, I --
ROGINSKY: This is such a big deal for Mitch McConnell --
ROGINSKY: Maybe he should have stayed into work and got this thing done.
BOLLING: We ran some sound bites of some people on the right, some people - - people who want to the run for president on the right. My hunch is they have to make that comment and my hunch is they're going to let it go because this is not going to be politically expedient for them to take this fight to the people.
TANTAROS: It's not. Now you're right. I agree because it is so divided and the fault lines are so interesting. I mean Julie and Eric, you're both agreeing on this issue.
TANTAROS: I'm --
BOLLING: This could be the last.
GUILFOYLE: I know, but you know what?
TANTAROS: But --
GUILFOYLE: Again, we got this poll, 73 percent say should renew. I don't think this is going to be like, the, be all win -- you know winning situation for a Democrat or for Rand Paul if he wanted to get the vote.
BOLLING: 73 percent of Republicans though, K.G.
TANTAROS: But if we are for Republican --
GUILFOYLE: This is what I'm talking about. He's running for the Democrat -- for the Republican nomination.
BOLLING: No. I know, I know.
GUILFOYLE: Not the Democratic-. BOLLING: I'm talking about the constitutionality and the concerns --
GUILFOYLE: I'm talking about the politicians --
TANTAROS: I think, I think largely the independents and the libertarians and those other voters that you have to win because that's how elections are won, they're won in the middle, not the left or the right. This issue is pretty important to them. And they tend to side on the privacy side.
ROGINSKY: I will --
TANTAROS: Not independent.
ROGINSKY: Yeah, and that's a good point. The other thing I'll say is, you know, all of these people who are talking right now, all want to be president. Of course they want this power.
TANTAROS: Right --
GUILFOYLE: This is a big issue right now because they are running for president, and I'm going to tell you something. You're not going to get the Republican nomination with that particular viewpoint, so it won't matter. It won't matter because you won't get there to make it to the general election. And independents are in favor of it as well, if you at Bolling.
All right, new developments on Baltimore's crime crisis next, on The Five and later, breaking Bruce Jenner news, that's right, the former Olympian told the world he was transitioning to a woman and you're about to see what she looks like for the very first time. Stay tuned.
BOLLING: There were five more people murdered in Baltimore over the weekend, making it the most violent month there in 40 years. The total of 43 homicides in the month of May, the city is in crisis. Will leaders do something to restore order again?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARILYN MOSBY, BALTIMORE STATE's ATTORNEY: There's small number of individuals that define the perception of this city, a small number of individuals with no code of ethics, who are killing babies and killing women.
STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE: At a time where the cries for justice are ringing loud, not just in Baltimore, but all over the country. We know that without the community, there can be no justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: Baltimore's residents are rightfully upset.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEREK JONES, BALTIMORE RESIDENT: A month ago, the whole city was trying to unify about a travesty happening. Now every day, you're hearing somebody's getting shot. Someone's getting killed. We can't, we can't become numb to the violence, oh, somebody just got shot and keeps walking. This is the attitude that's happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: All right, K.G. Let's start with you, Mosby there -- what is she talking about?
GUILFOYLE: I don't know. Every day she aggravates me more. I mean, I don't know what's going on with her, and I said before, they could --
BOLLING: You know is she just pointed the fingers at cops more?
GUILFOYLE: But there, she can't. I mean, literally the cops, you have to go out with your butt on the line, and this is who is going to be in charge and watching over you and deciding whether or not you're going to lose your liberty and be thrown in jail or be arrested. Like cops are more worried about that. Like, let's forget. I'm less worried about getting shot than I am getting, you know thrown in jail or indicted or something by this lady. Her rhetoric is so abusive, and it's the language of an activist. It is somebody that's not working in concert with law enforcement. It is someone who is working in conjunction with the likes of Al Sharpton. That's how it sounds.
BOLLING: We've said for a long time, what do you expect? When cops are being -- their finger -- the administration's fingers are being pointed at them, they're going to hesitate. They're going to think twice --
GUILFOYLE: Of course.
BOLLING: Before they make the stop or they make -- they go run towards the crime versus when they don't. And what else is going to happen? Crime's going to go up.
TANTAROS: They're thinking about their own life, they are thinking about their families, their jobs, their pensions, all these things that they could risk losing, and they're policing neighborhoods frankly, that need them the most. So if you push the cops out, who are you going to call when thing goes poorly? I mean, really? And the cops aren't going to stop policing my neighborhood or your neighborhood or your neighborhood. I mean these neighborhoods where crime is super high, that's where cops need to be the most. You know the question about what to do about this, I mean, Rudy Giuliani was just on with Neil Cavuto earlier, he has the template to fix a city that was literally destroyed by progressive policies for decades. You put more cops on the street that was actually through a bipartisan crime bill, that Hillary Clinton wants to get rid of. It was her husband's ironically, but also he didn't believe in that theory of broken windows. Where one small broken window would lead to a whole building full of broken windows that the little crimes matter and he also was at early proponent of welfare to work. And that is what dug New York City out of a hole that it's in, that unfortunately Bill de Blasio --
GUILFOYLE: Putting us back in.
TANTAROS: Is putting us back in every single day.
BOLLING: And the media. Julie, over the weekend, the Washington Post put out a piece talking about crime in Baltimore. I'm sorry, in America. It said that law enforcement killed blacks at the three to one ratio and rate adjusted for the population that they did with white perpetrators. The problem is that if you do the math on it, blacks account for three times the amount of crimes. In other words, the population of black community is about 13.5 percent of the population. They account for almost 40 percent of the violent crimes in America.
ROGINSKY: Look, I don't think this is a black or white issue, not only it usually black and white. I don't think it's a one side is good, other side is evil issue. There are certain problems of -- in the inner city that we need to address, and as a liberal exodus before, it's incumbent upon liberals to look for solutions that are not typical.
BOLLING: But they're making crisis --
ROGINSKY: But -- but
BOLLING: Black and white issue though?
ROGINSKY: But, but, I also think you can't automatically say that there are not bad cops out there, there are few of them, but there are that need to be investigated.
BOLLING: But only bad cops killing --
ROGINSKY: Freddie Gray --
BOLLING: People or killing black people because that's all I'm hearing?
ROGINSKY: Well, listen --
BOLLING: The bad cops are killing black --
ROGINSKY: Well, I will give, I will give you example. What happened on Staten Island here, that person need not have died. And I know the grand jury didn't indict them, but I'm think it's --
BOLLING: The black and white issues.
ROGINSKY: Wait a second --
BOLLING: It's like Mosby and Rawlings-Blake and Al Sharpton for making it black and white --
ROGINSKY: But listen. No, no, no, but listen, what I'm saying to you is there are right on both sides, they are right or wrong on both sides, but you can't automatically say all cops good, all these other people are bad.
GUILFOYLE: And nobody is saying that.
BOLLING: That's kind of what she's saying, no?
ROGINSKY: No. I don't think so.
BOLLING: And you have two sound bites.
SHILLUE: Yeah, I think --
GUILFOYLE: Justice by any means.
SHILLUE: Well, yeah --
GUILFOYLE: That's what she's saying.
SHILLUE: It's also, they're not -- I don't think the argument is -- oh, there are some bad cops, let's root out the bad cops. The argument is that we're hearing within -- from the protesters is there are too many arrests, we've got to stop this, but when arrests go down, death goes up.
SHILLUE: So there aren't too many arrests, there should be more.
BOLLING: Can I throw this out there? And this is playing right into exactly what you said. Crime is on the rise across America, not just Baltimore, its being called the Ferguson effect by the Wall Street Journal. Check out this map, the latest monthly figures versus last year. Shootings in Los Angeles up 25 percent, while murders in New York are up 13 percent, Chicago, 17 percent, St. Louis, 25 percent, Atlanta, 32 percent, get this, Milwaukee homicides up a stunning 180 percent. So Tommy, it's not just Ferguson or Baltimore or Staten Island, it's spreading.
SHILLUE: Well, and I would think the bad guys are using this as an opportunity. If they want to kill someone, if someone's on their list, what better time than when, you know, the cops are kind of on the ropes? I love this article by Rich Lowry that he turned the, that hashtag on his head, the black lives matter. He said, let's be honest, some black lives really don't matter. He said if you're a young black man and you're shot by another black man, you're politically useless to progressive. I thought that was a great article.
BOLLING: Quick, quick around.
GUILFOYLE: Yeah, we talked about that on the show. Yeah, Listen. I think that people need to have an understanding of the tools and resources that law enforcement needs and communities that have been stricken by violence, now you have in this particular city total unrest, economic despair which will only going to lead to further violence and crime on the street. You have uncertainty in the department because they do not feel that those officials that have been put in place, to be impartial that justice is blind, to make sure and fully and unfairly and investigate the facts, they're not doing that.
GUILFOYLE: That's the problem.
TANTAROS: There's proactive policing which works a very well as we've seen in cities like New York and there's an aggressive policing in which Julie, nobody is in favor of. And yes, there may be a few bad apples, but to have this -- and this was right to the top. Had the president of the United States wag his fingers at the cops, like he has done so many times and talk about how he would love to federalize the police force that only sends a message to cops that they are the enemy.
ROGINSKY: But if you can see that Marilyn Mosby was prosecuting somebody, who is an absolute -- who she considers to do criminal. Why can't she say what she said about the cops?
TANTAROS: Because --
GUILFOYLE: Our job. (ph)
TANTAROS: She's politically charged, it could have said that's not her job, and by the way, her case, let's see if these charges hold up.
ROGINSKY: OK. But I think --
ROGINSKY: That's for any criminal she'll stand up and say this.
BOLLING: They're wrapping me, we got to go. Coming up, Retired Face of the Nation host Bob Schieffer admits, he and others in the mainstream media, gave President Obama a big pass when Obama ran in 2008. You're going hear that next on "The Five."
TANTAROS: When President Obama ran for office in 2008, the mainstream media threw him softball questions and gushed over the senator from Illinois. Now the newly-retired host of "Face the Nation" admits that was a big mistake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOB SCHIEFFER, OUTGOING HOST OF CBS'S "FACE THE NATION": I think the whole political world was struck by this fellow who sort of came out of nowhere with this very unusual name. And when he won out in Iowa, I think people sat up and took notice.
HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS: But isn't it the job of journalists to be spectacle even of a young phenom?
SCHIEFFER: Yes. It is. And I don't know; maybe we were not skeptical enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TANTAROS: Well now the question is, will history repeat itself with the press going easy on Hillary Clinton? Well, the jury's still out, but there are signs that they won't give her a total pass.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The stories keep building on themselves and could potentially be problematic in a general election for her if she doesn't answer them.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR: You can't go 20 minutes in this town, it seems, without some sort of story about the Clinton Foundation that gives you a little bit of the creeps.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say we'll give you those answers, then simply don't. For a major campaign that's well-staffed, I've never encountered that, and I think that suggests they don't to want answer the questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TANTAROS: All right. So Eric, is this foreshadowing that she is going to have some scrutiny by the press? Over the weekend, you heard -- we played Halperin. We also saw Maureen Dowd of The New York Times again roast Hillary Clinton in one of her columns.
BOLLING: I would hope so. I don't think that she's still going to get the same scrutiny that the Republican candidates get. Don't forget: the one thing that -- feasibly, the one thing that derailed Mitt Romney's chance was the 47 percent comment that someone videotaped in a small private room. I don't think she's going to get that kind of thing, those aha, got you moments, that the Republicans are.
The good news is that Bob Schieffer admitted to something that we've been saying forever...
BOLLING: That the mainstream media applies to liberal candidates. And it's unfair to the American people who are picking their next president. Thank you for doing it, but where the hell were you eight years ago? You know what I mean? Give me a break.
Will they step up? I'm not sure. I'm not sure who's on the left, the mainstream media types. It's not going to be Stephanopoulos. He's not going to be the one taking the shots. I'm not sure who's there other than, you know, the right, the FOX News, the conservative venues that are going to dig deep.
TANTAROS: I mean, Kimberly, it took Ed Henry to pressure her to answer some questions the other day. She wasn't feeling the heat from the other reporters. If it wasn't for Ed, we'd still be on Clinton watch and it would have been, like, day 47 drought.
GUILFOYLE: It would be like crickets. Yes, he has to storm the court, essentially, to get an answer out of her. I mean, sweet Ed, who knew he had that in him? It's kind of compelling and Braveheart-ish at the same time.
But yes, she's not going to answer anything. You talked about this the other day, Eric. She doesn't have to. For her, silence is golden. The less she says, then the less they have to work with to go against her and make, you know, commercial spots and attack ads and et cetera going forward.
What she wants to do is let a pack of hungry dogs and Republicans feed off each other so there's nothing but, like, carcass left. And then, she can laugh her way all the way through, you know, to the general election.
TANTAROS: It's really -- I don't blame her advisors. I would keep her out of the limelight if she doesn't do very well. I wouldn't -- I would say, "Be quiet, because you're not really good at this. You don't look authentic, so let's keep you out of the shadows."
GUILFOYLE: Book you another spa day.
TANTAROS: Isn't her -- but year, isn't her strategy to go around the mainstream media, much like President Obama did? Isn't she going to go to maybe the women's magazine and other publications because of her fear of the mainstream press?
ROGINSKY: Yes, but you and I both have done this for a living. You can't beat the press, my friend. You know that. I mean, you can't.
And the problem is for her, look, some extent of the mainstream press brought her down. Obama showed up in 2008. Bob Schieffer is right, everybody here is right. Obama got the treatment -- it's unbelievable the treatment that Obama got.
And "Saturday Night Live," if you recall, did a great sketch about it back in 2008, where they sort of mocked the presses treatment of her versus the treatment of Obama.
But the problem for her is you can avoid the press for only so long. She's going to to deal with them in a general election. They're going to be even more pissed off at her. She was never beloved by the press. Maureen made a career out of beating her up for the past 12, 15 years.
TANTAROS: ... Republican, though...
ROGINSKY: Against a Republican, I mean, it really makes the point about the hostility. Because if you cut off the press, they do get ticked off and angry. But against the Republicans, I don't you think for her.
SHILLUE: That's why this segment should be called, "the Democrats' press pass," not Obama's. Because it happens every election cycle. And it's going to happen with Hillary. They are going to be giving her a hard time during the primary when she has all the tough challengers.
And then when she runs against a Republican, she's going to be a combination of Holly Golightly and Susan B. Anthony. She's going to be able to do no wrong.
ROGINSKY: Can I make a prediction right now? Bernie Sanders is going to be the new darling of the press corps...
ROGINSKY: ... until the debates come. They're going to beat up on her in the primary. They're not going to wait until...
TANTAROS: I'm not sure about that.
SHILLUE: They're going to go light on -- they're going to go hard on her now. And then they're going to go lightly in the general election.
ROGINSKY: You can't just all of a sudden turn that off in the general, I'm telling you right now. They're going to go hard on her, because she's doing the wrong thing. She's ignoring them.
GUILFOYLE: What's your definition of hard?
BOLLING: First of all, like he just said, that's playing into the whole narrative. Go harder on her now when she has no risk.
BOLLING: And they'll defend her. When she has someone that can easily give her a fight, then they'll go soft on her. She's the grandmother. She's the mother. She's the first female president.
ROGINSKY: The women...
SHILLUE: Now he comes out and he admits it? It's like, great. Can I quote Pete Campbell? "Not great, Bob." That's a "Mad Men."
ROGINSKY: I got it, I got it. Thank you. I got it.
TANTAROS: After eight years, no one holds them accountable.
OK. Well, actor Vince Vaughn, swoon, his passionate plea for our Second Amendment rights. Get what he said up next on "The Five."
SHILLUE: A lot of celebrities push for gun control. Actor Vince Vaughn isn't one of them. He's pushing for gun rights in America.
In the new issue of British GQ, the star of movies like "Wedding Crashers" and "Old School" shared his support for the Second Amendment. Vince Vaughn argues banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat. It won't rid the world of criminality. He points out the need for weapons in schools. Quote, "Mass shootings have only happened in places that don't allow guns. These guys go and shoot up these bleeping schools, because they know there are no guns there. They are monsters killing six-year-olds."
Yes, I think we can agree on that. They're monsters, Eric, but what do you think? I mean, here's the real issue...
GUILFOYLE: You have the Constitution.
SHILLUE: Let's not get in the gun control debate. Is his Hollywood career over? That's what I want to know.
BOLLING: Vince Vaughn?
BOLLING: Do I think Vince Vaughn? No! It is not -- it's not a good career move to be a conservative in Hollywood, and clearly, now he's proving himself at least to be a libertarian, maybe a conservative, as well. Who knows? But great.
He's right. It's everything we've talked about. Every time there's a mass shooting, the movie theater shootings, the kindergartens, whatever, they're gun-free zones. So how about schools? How about colleges? How about universities where a 5'2" woman is 105 pounds walking through campus at night, and she has to protect herself against four or five people that she may not feel comfortable with? She has a concealed carry permit, she should be allowed to do it, and more should have concealed carry permits.
Good job, Vince Vaughn. I wish more people would listen to you and watch your movies.
SHILLUE: Yes. Plenty of -- plenty of women in L.A., too. Do you know how many women are packing in L.A.?
BOLLING: Not enough. Not enough.
SHILLUE: Andrea, here's the thing, though. Yes, you can come out as libertarian. You can come out against drug laws, against NSA, whatever you want, but Second Amendment, his name is mud in Hollywood now, don't you think?
TANTAROS: I don't think so. I mean, he's pretty successful. He hasn't, you know -- he has built a pretty, I think, great track record. It's not like he's in the early stages of his career, so he must be feeling pretty good to come out about this position.
And I think he's right. And I think a lot of people in L.A. secretly would probably agree with him. And if you look at what they did in Newtown, they decided as a school district to arm the school then.
So Vince Vaughn makes a point, because look, a lot of these private schools, they have armed guards. So why can't my kids be protected? If the school wants armed guards, they should have them.
And also, he's right about this. They passed gun laws in New York City after the Newtown shooting, and now the murder rate in New York City has spiked an alarming 20 percent after passing more gun laws.
SHILLUE: Well, all these cities, Baltimore, I mean, these have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, right? Julie, what about this -- what about this...
GUILFOYLE: She's a Vince basher.
ROGINSKY: I'm not.
GUILFOYLE: Get ready.
ROGINSKY: I love "The Wedding Crashers." So help me, because I love "The Wedding Crashers." But on this I disagree, because there's study after study that shows that more guns equal more deaths. Places that have fewer gun control laws have more deaths.
BOLLING: That's not true.
ROGINSKY: "Journal of American Medicine," for one. I will tweet it -- I will tweet it out. "Journal of American -- American Medical Association" is one study. I could point to ten others.
GUILFOYLE: I've heard this before. The research is up on 17.
ROGINSKY: No, no, no, no, no. I'll get to the research. You know what? OK, here. I will tweet it, tweet all of this to everybody after the show.
But I will say this. Look, I don't agree with him. If you want to have trained armed guards in school, that's one thing. I don't want a bunch of teachers who are not trained packing heat.
GUILFOYLE: So you are for weapons, then, in school.
ROGINSKY: I don't have a problem...
GUILFOYLE: You just feel they should be in the right hands. You agree with Vince.
ROGINSKY: I agree with Vince if Vince is saying there should be an armed guard. But I don't agree with Vince in that principals and teachers should be packing heat, because if they're not trained, I don't want them shooting at a bunch of...
BOLLING: They would be trained.
ROGINSKY: Well, they're armed guards.
BOLLING: Of course they would be.
ROGINSKY: They're armed guards. I don't know. Under your concealed carry weapon, everyone can have it. I don't want principals and teachers doing it. They're not professionals.
SHILLUE: All right.
ROGINSKY: Not professionals.
GUILFOYLE: The point is you go and get proper training, and you get certified, because they're not just going to let it run amuck across the country.
TANTAROS: ... arm the untrained gym teacher.
GUILFOYLE: Not the janitor...
ROGINSKY: I don't know what he was arguing. People were -- a lot of people were saying the principal should have been armed. I don't think principals should be armed. If one of the off-duty police officers who's gone through the police academy, that's a different story.
SHILLUE: Everyone here loves him, so I think his profile's going down in Hollywood.
GUILFOYLE: Love you, Vince.
SHILLUE: Ahead on "The Five," reality star, former Olympian Bruce Jenner revealed in April he was going to become a woman. She is now on the cover of the new Vanity Fair. And see what Jenner looks like for the first time as a female, next.
ROGINSKY: Seventeen million people watched Bruce Jenner tell Diane Sawyer about his gender identity secret and his plans to transition from a man to a woman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: Are you a woman?
BRUCE JENNER, OLYMPIC MEDALIST: Yes. For all intents and purposes, I am a woman. People look at me differently. They see you as this macho male, but my heart and my soul and everything that I do in life, it is part of me. That female side is part of me. That's who I am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGINSKY: That transition has just been revealed along with Jenner's new name, Caitlyn, with a "C," not a "K." That's, I think, a little message to the Kardashians. Jenner appears on the cover of the new issue of "Vanity Fair," photo taken by Annie Leibowitz.
So Tom, I have a question. Who do you think has more plastic now in their body, Kim Kardashian or Caitlyn Jenner?
SHILLUE: Does she have -- I don't even -- I thought...
ROGINSKY: She looks great.
SHILLUE: Kim was au naturale. I didn't know there was any work done there.
I don't keep up with that Kardashian, but the thing is, I've got a question, because I don't know the answer to your question. What is -- why do men who transition always look kind of like a Betty Grable type, you know? But woman who transition don't look like Cary Grant, right. They don't usually glam it up. They usually just kind of -- they're just like a regular guy, right?
ROGINSKY: Well, I think she looks great. By the way, for the record, I think she looks fantastic, and I'm happy for her that she has finally been at peace with herself. Because one of the things she said, Andrea, was that this is not the first time that she's not lying about something.
Eric, don't even smirk at me right now. I think this is great. This is who she is.
TANTAROS: I think it was more courageous to come out as a conservative than to come out as Caitlyn, I mean, truthfully. And I think that...
GUILFOYLE: Also with a "C."
TANTAROS: I think that she looks better now, and I really mean that. And probably because she's happy. And in the article she says that "I feel very happy. I finally feel that after all these years I can be myself." And visually, I mean, I'm being totally honest.
SHILLUE: But Andrea, you're comparing those two pictures.
TANTAROS: He looks better as a she. And I say that because in the interview with Diane Sawyer, he was -- the hair was frazzled. He didn't look -- he was disheveled. He didn't look like himself. She looks great now, and I mean that sincerely.
ROGINSKY: Well, I think that -- Eric, I think it's partially true. You've got -- you've got people -- look, this is clearly somebody who, for her -- now her entire life, has lived completely not at peace with who she was. And finally, this is a woman in her 60s who's saying, "I'm happy with who I am, and this is what I want to be." And I think there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, I think it's fantastic.
BOLLING: I wasn't smirking about anything that was going on here. I was smirking because I had the exact same talking points.
Bruce Jenner did something that's very difficult. Bruce Jenner did something that he knew was probably going to give him a lot of grief. Bruce Jenner stood up loudly and proudly and declared he was a Republican. And that was the funny part; that's why I was smirking.
I'll tell you what did happen from this, though. My wife called and said, "Can you get the Bruce Jenner magazine -- I'm sorry, the Caitlyn Jenner magazine. We're sold out." All the -- she went to, like, 10 different places. I went to four or five newsstands here. Sold out, too.
So whatever "Vanity Fair" decided, they really nailed it here. This is going to be a big, big selling issue.
Look, one of the best athletes on the planet, ever. He wants to be a boy or girl, knock yourself out.
TANTAROS: And I think, Kimberly, that's a really good point. Because this is somebody who's been in this whole crazy Kardashian world. These people, as far as I can tell, haven't done anything with their lives. Bruce Jenner, as Eric just pointed out, was a tremendous -- probably continues to be a tremendous athlete. And for somebody like that to all of a sudden come out and say, "Look, I did this as a man, but I no longer want to live as a man. I want to live as a woman," I think that sends a great message to other people out there who may be struggling with their gender identity. And I think that's great. What do you think?
GUILFOYLE: I'm sure that it's very inspirational to those that struggle with gender identity issues. And if this gives them the courage to come out and to talk to their family, their friends and reveal what they have, what kind of turmoil and, you know, lack of peace inside, because they've been keeping a secret or shielding it for fear of hurting family members, this was courageous. Most definitely. And especially now, also "Vanity Fair" putting on the cover, so you know, all the best to them and their families.
ROGINSKY: Yes, all the best to Caitlyn Jenner. All right. "One More Thing" is up next.
GUILFOYLE: It's time now for "One More Thing" -- Eric.
BOLLING: All right. This is a little bit of a tough one. Joe and Jill Biden lost a son, lost Beau, 46 years old, to brain cancer over the weekend. He was a Delaware attorney general, two terms. He was also in the U.S. -- sorry. Military. He was a Delaware Army National Guard. He earned a Bronze Star for his service. He was also thinking about running for Delaware governor in 2016.
Just want to say, from us to that family, Joe especially, who has had so much tragedy in his life. He lost a wife and a daughter many years ago and now loses his son. Our hearts go out to the Biden family. Beau Biden dead.
GUILFOYLE: Yes. God bless them. Terrible loss.
TANTAROS: A very sad story. An 11-year-old girl named Abbie Zukowski from Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, was struck by a car and killed last week. Very, very sad.
However, some of her friends and family, her sister Maddie, appealed to Taylor Swift, because Abbie was a huge fan of the singer got to meet her when she was on tour in 2011. And the singer, who's also a Pennsylvania native, Taylor Swift, responded and sent flowers after a pretty aggressive hashtag campaign, #TaylorRememberAbbie. She did. She wrote a very sweet note to her.
And just one thing, if you all watching could send a message to Facebook, the video of when Abby was struck by a car has gone viral, and it's very heartbreaking for her family to watch. So if you could please send a message to Facebook to take down the video of this young girl dying, that has gone viral, it would be a tremendous help to give the family some peace. And I appeal from the bottom of my heart that Facebook would do the right thing and do this.
GUILFOYLE: Shouldn't even have to make that appeal. I'm glad you brought it up -- Julie.
ROGINSKY: Well, a slightly lighter note, Shia LaBeouf did a -- what do you call, an inspirational speech the other day, and here's a clip of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIA LABEOUF: Do it! Just do it! Don't let your dreams be dreams. Yesterday you said tomorrow. So just do it. Make your dreams come true. Some people dream of success while you're going to wake up and work hard at it. Nothing is impossible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGINSKY: I don't know what "it" is, but I'm doing it out of sheer terror.
GUILFOYLE: Loved it.
ROGINSKY: Yes. My eyes lit up in pure terror, whatever Shia wants me to do.
SHILLUE: He lives in a mansion down by the river. You know that, right?
GUILFOYLE: Interesting. All right, on now another uplifting moment, if you love America, you love the military and you love men in the plank position like I do, take a look at this. Yes. OK. This is George, 57 years strong, and he got the world record in the Guinness Book for planking for 5 hours and 15 minutes and 15 seconds, in the abdominal plank position. Not easy, people. I can spend about 3 minutes in that position.
ROGINSKY: No kidding.
TANTAROS: You planked for longer than that, K.G.
GUILFOYLE: He beat it, he beat it. And so he was able to do this and regained his previous world record. I think it's fantastic. You got to love it.
SHILLUE: Well, I plank the old-fashioned way, flat on the floor.
OK. Look, Harriet Thompson, 92 years old, she just finished a marathon. Oldest woman ever to finish the marathon, seven hours, seven minutes and 42 seconds. It's fantastic. What does this prove? I think we should raise the retirement age. Old people are taking over. Come on, they're fantastic.
GUILFOYLE: Medicare benefits. Set your DVRs 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.