Dick and Liz Cheney: US needs a leader to defend liberty

Authors of new book 'Exceptional' on 'The Five'


This is a rush transcript from "The Five," September 2, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino along with Andrea Tantaros, Juan Williams, Eric Bolling and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan highlighted the importance of a strong U.S. military to defend freedom around the world.


RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: It's up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day-by-day.


PERINO: Decades later, as freedom faces new enemies, America's might have diminished and we need another leader who will defend liberty once again. That is the call of our guest tonight. We are pleased to welcome Former Vice President Dick Cheney along with his daughter Liz Cheney, a former deputy assistant secretary of state and Fox News contributor. They are the coauthors of a new book called Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America and we're really honored to have both of you here today. It's good to see you.


PERINO: I -- so in reading through the book yesterday, one of the things I wanted to ask you as we set the scene before we go around the table here is, the subtitle is Why the World Needs a Powerful America. What is the risk if the world doesn't have a powerful America?

L. CHENEY: Well, I think that's a perfect question, Dana. Because you have to think about what a world looks like in which, it's not America that sets, you know the game rules essentially, a world in which, you know perhaps Iran is ascendant, Russia is ascendant, China is ascendant, a world in which ISIS is running rampant. And frankly, you see a lot of that today. But there are people who say why does America have to do this? Let's just let Europe do it. And what you're seeing in the Middle East, for example is when America withdraws, Europe doesn't fill the vacuum, ISIS does, Iran does.

PERINO: Mr. Vice president, do you want to add anything to that?

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's part of the message that we try to convey. Of course, we tell the story beginning with World War II and then the cold war, and the way in which America really became the sole superpower in the world. And all that we accomplished, especially, during the 20th century and how different things are today. Primarily, because consensus that existed then, republican and democrat alike, FDR, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy on the one hand, Ronald Reagan, Jerry Ford, the Bush's on the other. And believed in a strong America and exceptional America, an America that really set the stage and was the defender of freedom and that's no longer the case, that Barack Obama doesn't share those views.

PERINO: Eric, wanna take it off?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Mr. Vice president, so I was in the oil pits downtown when this -- when Gulf War 1 happened and when Gulf War 2 happened. After the 1990-1991 Gulf War, you guys decided not to go in and take Saddam Hussein out. Their decision was made differently in 2003. What changed in those -- in that period?

D. CHENEY: Well, a big difference was 9/11. In the first Gulf War, there was an agreement. We had allies from all over that part of the world, and the mission basically, was to go in and liberate Kuwait and drive him back into Iraq. Nobody argued that we should do any more than that. In the meantime, you fast forward then 12 years, by then we'd had 9/11. We'd seen the United States attacked, worst attack in our history, worse than Pearl Harbor, 3,000 dead Americans, et cetera. And we were concerned then, very concerned, that the next mass casualty attack might well be with deadlier weapons. And when you start to look at more deadly weapons existed and had been developed and used in the past, Iraq was the center of it. And Barack Obama -- not Barack Obama, excuse me.


D. CHENEY: Spoke.

PERINO: Saddam Hussein.

D. CHENEY: Saddam Hussein.

BOLLING: Can I just follow up? Again, knowing we've had this question come up quite often, knowing what you know now, with what happened in the aftermath, was that the right decision?

D. CHENEY: I think it was. It wasn't -- there was never anybody any suggestion that we ought to go on. Nobody was arguing that was the right course of action. We had United Nations support for what we were doing. The Congress had approved it overwhelmingly. We had a lot of allies that had signed on from that part of the world. And we'd reached the point where we'd achieved our objective after about 100 hours of ground war and several weeks of bombing. And that's what we said we were going to do, we did it and we stopped.

PERINO: Andrea.

ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: This is perhaps the most compelling case that I've read against the Iran deal, that's in the headlines. You articulate it, just really in a very adept and incredible way. And you bring up Obama's 2009 Cairo speech. And you quote the line where he said "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons." And then you write, "It is though President Obama sees no moral difference between Iranian nuclear weapons and an American one." Do you believe that the president is allowing Iran to get this weapon deliberately? And do you see that he conflates us on the same moral plane?

L. CHENEY: I think that the president, and you've pointed out a line from that speech, the people often don't talk about.


L. CHENEY: And have ignored. I think the president fundamentally, misunderstands the importance of America maintaining nuclear supremacy. And this is one of those places where, throughout history, republicans and democrats alike have spoken about it. He views all nuclear weapons as bad. And I think he couples that with this idea, that somehow Iran should be welcomed as a leader into the Middle East. He's said that repeatedly, that they need to be welcomed in, to play their rightful role. Not understanding that they are in fact, apparently not understanding the world's worst state sponsor of terror and that this deal is going to, not just give them a pathway to nuclear weapons, to a nuclear arsenal, but hundreds of billions of dollars. And it will remove the restrictions on their conventional weapons imports. Remove restrictions on the ballistic missile program. So you've got to sort of step back here and say, anyone who's willing to accept this deal that he has put on the table, it's hard to imagine that they have grave concerns about an Iranian nuclear weapon, given that the deal will result in an Iranian arsenal.

TANTAROS: And you write, almost as if, you believe that they will use it.

D. CHENEY: Well, I think our concern is that you will have a proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Saudis and Emiratis, the Egyptians, others who live in the areas, but the Sunni countries are not going to abide by a situation where the Iranians have nuclear weapons and they don't. So I think it will in fact, lead to the proliferation of weapons. And when you think about, say 5, 10, 15 years down the road, that part of the world very unstable to begin with where you've got terrorist organizations, sometimes toppling governments, imagine what would have happened if Muammar Gaddafi, instead of surrendering his nuclear materials to us after we took down Saddam, had kept them and completed the program and then fell and ISIS came move in and took over, they'd have a nuclear weapon today. So I think the possibility of a nuclear conflict or a conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons is significantly enhanced by what's happening here. I think the risk is greater than any time since World War II.


L. CHENEY: The other thing that the president seems not to recognize is the value of our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. And the extent to which, if you look at those countries in the Middle East, our ability to say to them, you don't need your own nuclear program because we will, you know provide a nuclear umbrella for you, is severely diminished. And frankly, at this point because of the cuts that he's made on top of the fact that we're enabling an Iranian program, none of those countries in the region frankly feel they can count on us for that anymore.

PERINO: Gutfeld.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Well, I get the impression that President Obama, he couldn't negotiate a hallway. So he -- I think he got good cop, bad copped by Iran. So when you meet with Iran, you meet with two sides. Like a married couple where one spouse is normal and the other one's crazy, and that's what he does, so he does. So when he meets, the pragmatists go hey, look, we got these nutty Ayatollahs over here. If we can get this through, everything we find, we got to do it now. So he actually plays the Ayatollahs against, against you know, Obama and Obama falls for it. That's -- that's why I think this happen, is I think they always use this good cop/bad cop thing, but that's not my question, that was just a comment.


GUTFELD: I want to talk about a different threat. I think there's a growing threat of non-state actors, who can now murder thousands. We're no longer talking about countries, but we're talking small groups of people who can get through technology, certain methods that can kill many, many people. What I worry about, and I see it as a big blind spot, is a preoccupation with our so-called privacy breaches. We're mistaking our own security, as something apart from our own society. That we're seeing our security, our NSA programs, our Intel, as somehow oppositional to our own country, and I think that's a huge blind spot, thanks to our traitor Snowden who should hang. Anyway, those are my thoughts.

D. CHENEY: No, I think you're right. And I noticed the other day for example, when Congress was debating a change in the NSA program, where the debate is -- data is no longer gonna be held by the government, it will be held by the companies. In the middle of all of that debate, where we're reducing and limiting our capacity under the NSA program, it was disclosed that China had tapped into our computers and had Dana's personal records, my personal records, anybody who ever worked for the federal government, stole that background material, as Congress is figuring out a way to limit our capacity, to defend ourselves against exactly that sort of thing -- big mistake.

GUTFELD: Thankfully, all her e-mails were about dogs.


PERINO: For convenience, I only use my government account.


PERINO: I said that was how I dealt with convenience. We're going to talk about that.

TANTAROS: And you actually do, do yoga.

PERINO: I know.


PERINO: I don't e-mail about it, though, but I might -- sorry. Juan Williams, get yourself in here.

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Well, how are you doing? Are you OK?

D. CHENEY: I'm great.


D. CHENEY: I was just back for a checkup on the third-year anniversary of my heart transplant, and everything is working great.

PERINO: Amazing.

WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know. I tell you, I get a charge whenever I see Liz, so it maybe you. You know I know your heart.

L. CHENEY: Juan, what are you doing?



WILLIAMS: Here's a tough question. I'm going to give you guys a tough question because the rest of these guys -- I don't know, you know, this is not Washington.

GUTFELD: Exactly how he was.

WILLIAMS: How he was?


WILLIAMS: I figured out here, give his heart a shock. All right, so last month, President Obama, right? You talk about this deal, this Iran deal that's in the news today and apparently now, you know it's going to be (inaudible). You say it's a train wreck, you say maybe he's doing it just for his legacy, but it's going to lead to the proliferation you were talking about earlier. So here's President Obama, last month at A.U., American University and he said, "And if the rhetoric in all the ads and opposition ,if it sounds familiar, it's because many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." And I thought he's talking about Dick Cheney. So, if people say, will Dick Cheney was wrong about Iraq, why should they listen to you on Iran?

D. CHENEY: Because I was right about Iraq.

WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think most Americans agree on that.

D. CHENEY: Well, I think if you look at the track record here now of what happened. Our objective was to take down Saddam Hussein. We did it. The world's a much better place without him. To argue that we shouldn't have done it, you've got to argue that Saddam Hussein, still be in power in Iraq. Secondly, when we took down Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi saw what we were doing. And he surrendered, announced and delivered his centrifuges, his Iranian feedstock and his weapons design. When we took that down and eliminated that threat, then we went after A.Q. Khan had supplied that material to Gaddafi. And he was the founder of the Pakistani program, but he was in a black market operation and selling nuclear materials to the North Koreans, to the Iranians, the Libyans. We took down his operation, too. So we achieved a lot when we went into Iraq. A lot of people don't like to talk about the rest of it, but we did the right thing then and I'm convinced now that it was absolutely the right thing.

BOLLING: Are we in the safer -- is the globe safer now without Gaddafi and Hussein in power? Some would say that maybe it would be safer place with them intact.

D. CHENEY: If they had nuclear weapons?

L. CHENEY: It's not.

BOLLING: Well, I mean did.

D. CHENEY: No. Gaddafi was on the road. He had the materials he needed to develop nuclear capability. He got it from.

BOLLING: Do we know that, though?




PERINO: We got the material and brought it back.

BOLLING: And we -- and, you know, do we not -- are we not in a global -- in a world where the Middle East is so unstable, that even, as Greg points out, something happens in Iran, there's a nuclear running fest for nuclear weapons throughout the region.

L. CHENEY: But the reason that it's like that, Eric, is because of the policies of President Obama. Think about what Iraq looked like on January 20th, 2009, when President Obama took the oath of office and was sworn in. Iraq was stable, al-Qaeda and Iraq had largely been defeated. The Shiite militias have largely been defeated. We are where we are today, and you're right. You know, we've got a potential explosion happening every day across the Middle East because things are so unstable. But the thing to remember is, a vote for this deal, is not a vote for peace. This deal makes war more likely, if you think about everything that unleashes.

BOLLING: That part Liz -- that part I agree with. My concern is that, when we had dictators in these countries, these dictatorship, foreign countries, crazy people, they at least kept the people at peace and they didn't.

L. CHENEY: Eric.

BOLLING: Necessarily look to kill everyone.

D. CHENEY: But there was more involved then, Eric. We had the example in Libya, Gaddafi, nuclear program. We had Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He had a nuclear program and '81, the Israeli took it out. The other program in '91, we took it out with desert storm. While we were involved during our time in offers, the North Koreans built a react of the Syrians and (inaudible) Syrians, the Israelis took it out. Military force, or the credible threat of military force was responsible for ending a lot of those nuclear programs that were in the works, but I think if we had not been involved over there, if the Israelis had not been as aggressive as they're been, we'd be in bigger trouble now than we are. What I worry about is I think Obama was never serious about a military option. I think that's why he ended up having to give away the store because in fact, the Iranians never believed he'd ever use force.

PERINO: All right. I wish that we had more time in this block, but we're going to hold you over for the next one because don't go away. Vice president and Liz Cheney are going to stay with us. We're gonna get their thoughts on the 2016 race. That's coming up next on The Five.


BOLLING: We're back with two special guest tonight, Vice President Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney, co-authors of the new book, Exceptional, already flying off the shelves. We want to get their take now on the 2016 race starting with the democratic side and this.


HILLARY CLINTON, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail.

Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation.

I'm confident that this process will prove that I never sent nor received any e-mail that was marked classified.


BOLLING: So Mr. Vice President, I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. So Hillary Clinton has said she used one device. And she said she only used one e-mail on that one device. Now if Hillary Clinton is on an airplane and the president needs to get in touch with the number one diplomat for America, and she is not on that device because it doesn't carry classified information, how does he get in touch with her?

D. CHENEY: Well she's probably flying on a government airplane. If she's secretary of state, she'd be using one of the 757's out at Andrews, we had four of them. And I used them as vice president. Secretary of defense, secretary of state would use them. So she'd be in communication.

BOLLING: How though?

PERINO: There's a plane -- there's a phone.

D. CHENEY: There's a phone.

PERINO: On the plane.

D. CHENEY: A telephone.

BOLLING: But if it's a matter of national emergency and he needs her right now, he's got to go through one, two, three steps. Maybe he calls Huma Abedin? Is it possible?

D. CHENEY: Well, perhaps. But when I was secretary of defense, I was in the chain of command. I was had a military aide with me with the football and chain of command president to me, and we had adequate communication under those circumstances.

BOLLING: Let me put it this in different way. Do you believe her that she only -- that she.


D. CHENEY: That's a different question.


PERINO: I have a question. Do you think that any person that wants to run for president ever puts themselves out there because they want to get the V.P. selection? Because that's what some people say about Carly Fiorina.

D. CHENEY: I'm looking for Liz to answer this one.

PERINO: Right?

L. CHENEY: I think somebody wants to be vice president, probably gets themselves picked as head of the selection.

D. CHENEY: The key to be vice president.

PERINO: I know.

D. CHENEY: The key to be vice president -- that's exactly right. If you're on the search committee, you're in pretty good shape.


L. CHENEY: Look, I think.


L. CHENEY: It is tough enough to run for president, that I would imagine any of those people who are up there are doing it because they want to be president.

PERINO: I agree. I just have heard a lot of people suggest that Carly Fiorina is just running because she wants the vice president (inaudible), which I don't think is the case.

D. CHENEY: Sexist.


PERINO: That's what I was getting at.

TANTAROS: It's so obvious, to me and to others who, you know studied the Clintons for awhile, and you know, you know them very well. That she set up this private server to escape record keeping laws and FOI laws, so that there wouldn't be any records of her e-mail. If Condi Rice had set up a separate server, wouldn't the national security team, wouldn't you, wouldn't President Bush have known about it? And why haven't republicans started to point the finger at the White House on this one? And President Barack Obama, because with every scandal, we see them slow walks it. There's a deep investigation. It takes forever. Why hasn't the FBI brought her in yet? Because frankly, this seems to me a crystal clear open and shut case of a woman who deliberately violated espionage laws and put her own political future above the safety and security of the United States of America.

L. CHENEY: I can't disagree with you. I think that the notion that you would decide, that you could conduct all of your business as secretary of state on a private e-mail server is absolutely baffling. And it could only come, you know given the fact that you've got very smart lawyers involved here. You've got to assume that the Clintons are so accustomed to the rules and the laws not applying to them that even when it comes to the national security information of the United States, they ignored the rules and the laws.

TANTAROS: What about the White House? What about the president and the national security team specifically? Wouldn't they have known and should they be held accountable?

D. CHENEY: Well, I find it hard to believe that she could operate that way and not be aware that she was violating the rules. One of the things that happen is when you go down to the west-wing basement, to the sit room for the national security council, maybe there's a basket there, right outside the door. And any electronic device, you've got a pager or cell phone or something, has to go in the basket before you can go into the room where classified meetings are going to be held. So it's around you all the time and the sensitivity on the materials that you receive, if you're getting a copy of the PDB in the morning, you know the briefer comes in, the CIA briefer goes through all of that. It's all very sensitive. You're surrounded by classification and the need to protect it.

GUTFELD: Mr. Vice President, if this was you doing these things, how quickly would you be in jail?


D. CHENEY: Well, in those days, I didn't do e-mail.

GUTFELD: Yeah, That's true, but now?

D. CHENEY: Part of that was I was not technically sophisticated.

BOLLING: Mr. Vice President, we want to change the direction to the GOP field. Juan, you want to weigh in?

WILLIAMS: Well, you know, one of the things that always strike me when I think about you in historical terms is that you didn't run for president, right?

D. CHENEY: Correct.

WILLIAMS: And you're one of the few vice presidents that didn't run for president.

D. CHENEY: That's right.

WILLIAMS: So now, when I'm listening to you, I hear you say, "Oh, that Joe Biden, oh, yeah, he could run for president." I'm thinking, wow. Dick Cheney is a fan or Joe Biden? What is this about?

D. CHENEY: Joe's a nice guy. We don't agree on much of anything. I just think they're short of candidates on the democratic side. And we've got 17 on our side, what have they got, four of five. I'd say go for it, Joe.

WILLIAMS: But you know, when you think about.


WILLIAMS: Joe Biden, I mean, what strikes me is he has now tremendous support among republicans for some reason. And I think it's just the antipathy.

PERINO: It's a ploy.

WILLIAMS: To Hillary -- exactly, in fact (inaudible), antipathy to Hillary Clinton. Is that what this is about?

D. CHENEY: No. I was asked for my views and we've consciously refrained from endorsing anybody on our side because we're doing the book and we want to focus on that, but I'm always happy to give the democrats advice.


BOLLING: Mr. Vice president, along those lines, will you endorse whoever the GOP ends up putting up as the nominee, no matter who it is?

D. CHENEY: I will support the nominee of my party. Always have and I will always.

BOLLING: Even if it's a Donald Trump?

D. CHENEY: I'm not commenting on any one, particular candidate. We've got 17 of them, at least. We've got a lot of good talent there. And as I say, I've refrained from endorsing or criticizing any of them. I will support the nominee of my party. Liz, I assume will probably do the same.

L. CHENEY: Yes, I will. We may --in the meantime, we might endorse different people, but.

D. CHENEY: That's possible.

PERINO: Well, that sounds like a good conversation.

D. CHENEY: Yeah, we'll be back.

L. CHENEY: We'll see.


BOLLING: So you will endorse someone prior to the nominee?

L. CHENEY: We might.

D. CHENEY: We might. I don't know whether that's going to happen. We have not yet. And that's.

PERINO: Oh, now your phone's going to be ringing off the hook. Everyone's going to be calling you.

D. CHENEY: Yeah. But no, our concern is this issue, (inaudible), national security.


WILLIAMS: Can I just get you back on the republican side for a second?

D. CHENEY: Sure.

WILLIAMS: Because there's an ad war right now today going on between Jeb Bush, Donald Trump. They're going at each other. Nobody ever thought Donald Trump was going to rise to this point, but Jeb Bush seems to be the guy that you favor. What do you think? Why is Donald Trump been able to outdistance Jeb Bush?

D. CHENEY: I haven't favored Jeb over anybody else.

WILLIAMS: I think.

TANTAROS: Can I jump in? Why do you think Jeb is struggling so much?

D. CHENEY: Well, again, as I said at the outset, I'm not going to be in the business of evaluating, critiquing, supporting, opposing, any of our candidates.

GUTFELD: Why hasn't Jim Gilmore caught on?


L. CHENEY: It's early.


BOLLING: Great answer.

GUTFELD: I think he's aiming at 20.


BOLLING: All right, we're going to leave it right there and say thank you very much, Mr. Vice president and Liz. And everyone, please go out and buy a copy of their new book Exceptional. It's a great read. And we hope you two come back and join us again sometime.

The Five returns in a minute with new developments on the Clinton e-mail scandal. Stay tuned.


TANTAROS: Well, is the State Department helping Hillary Clinton clean up her private server mess? Fox News has learned that at least four classified messages had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public.

Department whistle blowers say it was part of an effort to hide the true extent of top-secret information on Clinton's server.

Another report completely contradicts Clinton's claims that she never sent classified info. At least six messages were sent by the former secretary herself.

If there is now a cover-up taking place, an Atlantic editor is offering this justification for it.


STEVE CLEMONS, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE: This is a family, you know, a franchise if you will, that has been under political assault for a very long time.  And after things like Ken Starr and his investigation, Whitewater, and the constant conspiratorial atmosphere around them, this was an act of defensiveness, to try and protect some bit of their terrain from enemies that I think they feel are embedded all around them.


TANTAROS: I'm not sure that anybody believes that, Eric. And I'm going to expand it beyond the State Department. Because I think people expect perhaps the State Department to help her out a little bit. I want to broaden this to what I said during the last block. Is this a larger Democratic cover-up, where the Obama administration is playing games? I think it is.

BOLLING: And you're hitting on something really important. Something that no one has really done. Really go after the Obama administration. Did you know -- did you know that she was allegedly -- she's saying that she didn't e-mail any classified information on her server, on her hand-held. She used one device.

Think about this. There were 7,000 pages in this last document dump. 2010 from Ambassador Holbrook, saying, "Just back from Kabul. The situation is dire." This would certainly strike me as being classified.

Or July 2010 from George Mitchell, outlining a meeting he had with Abbas.  Or the 2010 e-mail where Hillary Clinton basically said, "Let's see if we can get the Clinton Foundation involved in some aid to Haiti."

Now, I -- look, there could be a grander scheme. It could have been Hillary Clinton's State Department saying, "Everything is going to be non- classified. Send it to me. Just don't mark classified even if it looks classified." But why isn't anyone pressing President Obama? If he knew it, why didn't he do something about it?

TANTAROS: I think Republicans should start to put the heat on him. I mean, Dana, you worked in the administration. Hillary makes it sound like there's a guy in a room with a rubber-stamp stamping them. As some spies say, some e-mails are born top secret.

BASH: She made some herself.

TANTAROS: That's right.

BASH: Right. And so when The Atlantic editor says that it was an act of defensiveness, well, then there's a solution. If you don't want to be under scrutiny and be held to the same standard that every other government employee and cabinet secretary and president of the United States has to live under, then you don't have to accept the nomination to be secretary of state. You don't have to have a situation where you try to close off and control all of your freedom of information requests from going out.  There's an easy solution to that. The convenient thing to do would be to not take the job in the first place if you're that worried.

The other thing is, she actually, in one of these e-mails, is coercing her staff, staff member Jake Sullivan, to send her an e-mail that he is telling her on the e-mail, "I can't send that to you, ma'am. It's classified."

She goes, "Send it anyway." So now she's actually putting other people in jeopardy.

I really do think that the White House certainly knew about it. Because she sends an e-mail to Susan Rice: "Send me an e-mail on this at any time."  So they knew she had a private server.

TANTAROS: Yes. Greg, I think this is a slow-walked investigation. I think there's no way the national security team in the White House did not know that the server was private. As I asked Cheney, the White House would have known if Condi were doing something like this. It's so obvious.

So why don't Republicans put a little more heat on President Obama?

GUTFELD: I don't know. I think maybe they realize he's done in a couple of years, and they just want to get -- they want to make sure she gets it or she's nailed for this.

Look, the server, that's the intern. As we know, the e-mails are the dress. And the mark-up -- the markings are the stain that you can't scrub off the dress.

Benghazi is now like the stalker outside her window, forever asking that one question: "Who pushed the video?" That's why there's so much secrecy.  It's always going to be about Benghazi.

You've got to look at it this way. America has a "help wanted" sign out looking for the best, most qualified person to deal with national security.  Hillary Clinton couldn't get past the pre-interview if she was interviewing for this job. She probably responds to Nigerian e-mails. That's how dim she is.

She is the least qualified and the least competent person in this era. She might have been fine in '94. I mean, she probably still thinks it's the '90s. But "Friends" isn't on any more. Now it's our enemies.

TANTAROS: Juan, this steady stream of releasing e-mails is such a joke.  Because it's not the 30,000 that she deleted. It's the ones that she is allowing us to see, which I think is by design. Would you disagree?

WILLIAMS: No, that's what she said. She said she took out the personal stuff. And I think the Republican argument is, "Well, we don't know -- why does she get to determine what's the personal stuff?"


WILLIAMS: Let me just...

TANTAROS: But that's the problem, Juan. Because if she took out the personal stuff then her work e-mail is about tea and TV shows and all this other unserious baloney?

WILLIAMS: Yes, I mean...

TANTAROS: What was she doing there?

WILLIAMS: I don't know. But I'm saying, at this point, you know, people have obtained the server. They're going to see if they can recover it. So we'll see eventually.

But in answer to your question earlier, I mean, I think that it's obvious that the president and his policy was everybody is to use a government e- mail. So that was very clear. No one doubts that. In fact, the administration was upset. So I don't think there's any question here.

And the second thing to say is that, you know, Hillary Clinton has said, no matter what device she was using, this kind of controversy, this review would be ongoing, because they would have been sent -- the same e-mails would have been sent to her.

PERINO: I think one of the other things that you have to ask if not only should you look at the White House, but it's also the FBI. So one of the things that happened with -- to David Petraeus when he was in his situation is that he was questioned by the FBI.


PERINO: And then that started to unravel, right? So then he eventually pleads to a lower thing. But has the FBI spoken to her yet? And if not, why not? I actually think the pressure from the public...


PERINO: ... not just Republicans, should be on the FBI, not necessarily Obama.

TANTAROS: They should bring her in and question her, which is what they did with Petraeus, and ask her what other secrets could be vulnerable?  They should haul her in immediately. As you point out, if it had been one of us, we would have been perp walked right now.

BOLLING: Hey, are those 30,000 that they scrubbed first, are they gone forever?

PERINO: They don't know yet.

TANTAROS: No. The FBI can get them. And by the way, what's most telling...

BOLLING: There you go.


TANTAROS: What's most telling is the fact that the CIA was the one that gave those intelligence committees in Congress those original e-mails.  That tells you there is one government agency that's not going to let her get away with it. Most likely because of Petraeus.

Next, Greg on what some in the mainstream media think is to blame for the rise in violent crime sweeping the nation. Stay tuned.


GUTFELD: On "Morning Joe," which is a show nobody watches, columnist Jonathan Capehart offered up a reason for the murder wave sweeping across America. It rhymes with "income inequality."


JONATHAN CAPEHART, COLUMNIST: It's the economy not reaching folks. I mean, we've been talking around this set and on lots of shows on lots of networks about the divide, the huge gap in income -- I should say the income inequality that's out there, where you've got people at the very top who are doing extremely well, people who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder not doing well and doing worse, especially since the economic collapse of 2008.


GUTFELD: Oh, please. Research has actually shown otherwise. Even with the great recession, crime declined. And most experts believe that violent crime, unlike property crimes, aren't linked to financial ills but driven by quarrels, anger, jealousy, dog pictures, and all egged on by drugs and booze.

But come on. Isn't climate change really at fault? Don't we know that?

But let's imagine Capehart's logic in an actual conversation.

"Hey, Tom, what's up?"

"Not much, Steve. This economic inequality upsets me."

"I know. Before it, I was a law-abiding gentleman farmer helping disadvantaged kids. But now I've decided to go shoot cops."

"Me, too. I was once a grade 'A' student in neurobiology, but now I'm going to go torch 7-Elevens."

That's Capehart's logic in a nutshell, where it probably belongs, because it's nuts. Fact is, those committing acts of violence now are always the same creeps who were doing it before.

But this new mayhem isn't helped by a media that paints police as rogues preying upon a hapless community.

So they've reversed the equation, excusing the heathens while smearing police assigned to protect communities from those very same heathens. The result: emboldened creeps who see opportunity and a thin blue line under attack.

So really, this new death wave must rest on the heads of those who feel that character is too much to expect in an evil, racist America.

Fact is, crime is going up because the will of our leaders is going down.

Hey, Juanzo, what is it about liberal columnists and their desire to justify destructive behavior? Why do they feel they must do that? You don't do that.

WILLIAMS: I don't do it. But I've got to tell you something. You know, you and I argue always.

GUTFELD: Yes, we do.

WILLIAMS: But I've got to tell you I agree with you on this. I just don't understand why people make excuses for bad behavior, especially in the black and Latino communities.

GUTFELD: Doesn't help the community.

WILLIAMS: Because I think, you know, you talk about drug use or people who sell drugs. It does nothing but tear apart those communities. And then somehow people are going to make excuses, like he's not a bad boy, you know? Or it's income inequality. Nonsense. Because the statistics are conclusive here, that we have seen crime drop even in the midst of economic recession.

So this is just like blather coming out of his head, is my feeling.

Now, you and I can argue about what's going on with cops. But I just wanted to say you and I are on the same page on this, which is dangerous for the audience.

GUTFELD: Yes, it's true. It makes me question my own logic now.

WILLIAMS: Yes, I know.

GUTFELD: If I agree with Juan Williams here.

BOLLING: Can I just throw the numbers out? Why Capehart is 100 percent wrong and clearly just playing ideology right here.

Violent crime over a 20-year period is down 50 percent. Murder, rape, assault, robbery down 50 percent. Over the exact same period of time, the poverty rate is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. We're at 15 percent. We're as high as -- the poverty rate in America as we were 20, 30 and 40 years ago. So as poverty has stayed the same, violent crime is going down. So there is clearly no correlation between violent crime and poverty as Capehart.

TANTAROS: But the temperature has gone up .07 percent. It's gotten a little bit hotter. And we all know that Jonathan Capehart and his friends think that, when it gets hotter out people, say, "It's hot outside. I think I'm going to go shoot a police officer" or whatever dialogue you were doing. I mean, excuses are pretty ludicrous.

And it's not just -- Juan, if you look at the stats in Democratic cities, this is what's so troubling. It's not just anti-cop rhetoric; it's the policies behind it. Policies put in place by Bill de Blasio that say we're not going to have bail for felonies. I mean, they're basically encouraging criminal behavior.

WILLIAMS: Not going to have bail for felonies?

TANTAROS: And it -- yes, here in New York.

WILLIAMS: You can't have bail?

TANTAROS: He says he's going to waive bail requirements for felony offenders...

WILLIAMS: Oh, waive bail.

TANTAROS: ... and he's decriminalizing all sorts of things, which is leading to even more crime.

GUTFELD: The lesson really is, is what we're seeing in the last -- I don't know -- 30, 40 years, is a mentality that divorces behavior from character.  That behavior can be blamed on global warming and on wages, unemployment, but not your character.

PERINO: I can see a desire to want to understand a problem, so that -- because once you understand and diagnose a problem, then hopefully, you can figure out a solution...


PERINO: ... to the problem. But it would be nice if we could all argue from the same set of facts on this. And the facts -- you know how they say that the Republicans are anti-science?


PERINO: It's actually not the case. Conservatives tend to base things on the statistics, on the actual facts. And you have to argue within those.


PERINO: It's easier to basically open your mouth and let your belly rumble about whatever thoughts are coming in your head.

GUTFELD: Is that a jab at my belly?

No, it's true that when a fact is uncomfortable, then it becomes a hate fact. Then it's discounted.

PERINO: Right.

GUTFELD: If it's a hate fact, we don't want to hear about it. Then the emotion takes over.

PERINO: Facts are facts.

GUTFELD: Exactly. All right. Thank you for that, Dana.

PERINO: You're welcome.

GUTFELD: That was helpful. Facts are facts. Put that on a bumper sticker.

All right. Ahead did Sony Pictures alter its upcoming film "Concussion" to placate the NFL? That's next.


WILLIAMS: An upcoming movie starring Will Smith could create another headache for the NFL. "Concussion" is based on the true story of a Nigerian-born doctor who identified the degenerative brain disease known as CTE. It's found in some NFL player who have suffered head injuries. So here's a look at the movie.


WILL SMITH, ACTOR: I found a disease that no one has ever seen.  Repetitive head trauma chokes the brain.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The NFL does not want to talk to you. You've turned on the lights and gave their biggest boogeyman a name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're going to war with a corporation that owns a day of the week.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No proof was presented today. Because there simply isn't any.

SMITH: They have to listen to us. This is bigger than they are.


WILLIAMS: The NFL can't be happy about this movie. But it did issue a statement saying it's encouraged by the ongoing focus on player safety.

So Dana, my P.R. assistant, if you're the NFL -- and the NFL has put pressure on Disney, on ESPN, people that they had troubles. Remember they had a documentary they didn't like? -- What do you do?

PERINO: Well, I think the movie's going to come out. It's going to get a lot of attention clearly. And I think, because it is so highly anticipated, that you kind of have to accept the fact that this was an accomplished doctor. If they have science and evidence that refutes what the doctor had found, then I think that they should present it. But other than that, I think they're just going have to ride it.

WILLIAMS: So Andrea, in fact the studio says that some material has been deleted. So I mean, if you're in the audience, do you think, "Hey, you know what? These guys, they punked out already"?

TANTAROS: I actually don't think anybody is really going to care. Why?  Because people love their football. And I think that these stories have already been out there. And I think that there's a lawsuit that's handling this.

And if I were the NFL, I wouldn't say a word. Why draw attention to it?  People are going to watch that movie. Even if they think there's a problem, they're still going to watch their favorite team on Sunday.

WILLIAMS: So when Sony got hacked, Eric, you know what?


WILLIAMS: They said -- they had some of those studio heads saying, "We've got to be -- make sure everything's just accurate so the NFL doesn't get mad."

BOLLING: This is a Sony film?


BOLLING: Good, because I don't think anyone's going to watch this.

WILLIAMS: You don't think so?


BOLLING: Yes, I think it's over. I think this is going to be one of the - - I -- look, I love sports. I love football. I don't have any interest in seeing this movie.

I think the NFL has an issue, and they're handling -- they're tackling it.  They're doing exactly what they needed to do. They recognized it. They've got serious helmet technology that they're implementing and rules. You can't lead with your helmet in the hit. And they're doing what they need to do. I don't -- I don't think this is that much of a factor.

WILLIAMS: So Gregory, what do you think of my head?

GUTFELD: Your head looks great.

WILLIAMS: And even inside.

TANTAROS: I think that there's a couple issues with some of the stuff inside. The thoughts that come out of it.

WILLIAMS: Dana is in there working.

GUTFELD: If you want to get a sober, balanced look at an issue, you do not go to the movies. Because they massage the facts to create a narrative in which the company, the corporation, is always evil; and it's the little guy who's the good guy. It's a David and Goliath narrative that always happens. You don't go to the movies to look for facts.

Go see a movie called "Ex Machina." Oh, what a great film that is. It's about the Turing test, about a guy creating robots. You should see that movie.

WILLIAMS: All right. On that point, "One More Thing" coming at you. Stay with us.


PERINO: It's time now for "One More Thing" -- Eric.

BOLLING: All right. Very quickly, three really cool business news items.

Chipotle will be delivering, starting delivery to 40 college campuses this year, expanding to 100. 7-Eleven is going to deliver in five cities right now, Chicago, New York, L.A., two more cities in Washington and one more.  I can't remember. Starting right now. And also McDonald's -- Greg.


BOLLING: All-day breakfast.

GUTFELD: All-day breakfast. That's all-day heaven.

BOLLING: All-day breakfast.


BOLLING: Over six (ph).

PERINO: All right. Hey, a history note. On this day in 1944, then 20- year-old future president George H.W. Bush was serving as a fighter pilot in World War II when his plane was attacked by Japanese anti-aircraft guns on the island of Chichijima in the Pacific. He was rescued. I think we have a picture of that, as well.

And also on this day 70 years ago, the Japanese formally signed their surrender agreement in the war. So kind of an interesting historical day - - Andrea.

TANTAROS: All right. I want to highlight a couple of companies that are using special needs kids in their advertising. Check this out. First we have a picture of Cora Slocum. She is with Libby and Luca. Adorable.  Kayla Kosmalski. She's in Gap Kids.

PERINO: She's cute.

TANTAROS: Very, very cute. And this 18-year-old, Madeline Stuart, will be making her debut in Fashion Week, which starts next week here in New York City. I applaud these companies...

WILLIAMS: That's great.

TANTAROS: ... for giving these kids an opportunity that will change their lives.

PERINO: That's a great "One More Thing."



GUTFELD: It's time for something new.


GUTFELD: Greg's Immoral Theater.


GUTFELD: As you know, since gay marriage, a lot of things have been going to hell. Take a look at this. See?




GUTFELD: First you have men marrying men and women marrying women. Now you've got cats, kittens hanging out with chicks.


GUTFELD: This is disgusting, and it has to stop.

PERINO: Juan, follow that.

WILLIAMS: Anyway, today was a big day in my family. It was the first day of school in the District of Columbia. There's Pepper, Wesley and their big brother. Today was when the preschoolers went off. So they had their new backpacks and lunch buckets. And my daughter Reagan, she made a special lunch. She cut up their sandwiches to look like stars.

PERINO: That's a whole new big thing. Taking pictures of your kids' lunch. And it's like a competition on Instagram.

WILLIAMS: Is that right?

PERINO: We'll have a segment on that next week. That's it for us.  "Special Report" is next.  

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.