This is a rush transcript from "The Five," December 16, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: This is a Fox News alert and a mistrial has been declared in the case of Freddie Gray. Take a listen to the presser by the family going on now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE WILLIAM H. MURPHY, JR., LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE FAMILY OF FREDDIE GRAY: A number of -- and in a high percentage of those cases there is a conviction. And so this hung jury does not mean it's the end of Officer Porter's case. Now, I understand that the judge has ordered the parties to appear before the administrative judge, and that the state will be seeking a new trial on behalf of Mr. Porter. So this saga is not over. And personally, I've had the same experience of having a jury come back hung, and sometimes the second trial results in a conviction and sometimes it results in an acquittal. So no one should be upset about it. And again, I join the family in commending the hard work that this jury put in, the sacrifices they made to be aware from their friends, family and employment and their desire to reach a just and impartial verdict. It doesn't always work. That's the nature of our system. But I have every confidence that it will work a second time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE).
MURPHY, JR: Oh, I'm not second-guessing the prosecution. I'm not going to second-guess the defense. They're all competent, hard-working lawyers who did the very best that they could and I'm sure that they're all disappointed. But I don't buy the nonsense that this is somehow a victory for either side, it's not. It's just a bump on the road to justice and you know the road to justice has lots of bumps.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE).
MURPHY, JR.: It should not be viewed as an indication that it may be hard to reach a verdict, either in this case or any of the future cases because the record that the criminal justice system says otherwise. Again, most hung juries get retried and those that get retried are usually 70 percent or so in favor of conviction about 20-some percent in favor of not guilty and a very small percentage result in hung juries a second time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think?
MURPHY, JR.: Oh, it's impossible to determine what the public wants from the view of a jury of 12 who could not reach a verdict. And no one should speculate what this means. And again, hung juries are usually temporary and ultimately verdicts are reached in the overwhelming majority of cases that are retried after a hung jury.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (OFF-MIKE).
MURPHY, JR.: Let me take another question from somebody who hasn't asked one already. Anybody else got a question? And if not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're talking about justice. People are saying this is not justice. You're saying this is part of the justice process.
MURPHY, JR.: The people who say that this is not justice simply don't understand how the system works. Sometimes there are guilty verdicts, sometimes there are not guilty verdicts and sometimes there are temporary hung juries where no verdict can be reached and the cases are normally tried again. So this is just a temporary bump on the road to justice. It happens. It's part of how the system works.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE)
MURPHY, JR.: No one should -- look, if the family is not angry, no one else should be angry. And I think the family has a bigger stake in this in almost anybody else. And the family wants everyone to remain calm. They want everyone to understand what just happened. And to make sure that their tempers don't get the best of them and that their emotions remain in check. This is a very important stage in the case. And the fact that a hard- working jury representing the citizens of Baltimore and indeed a cross- section of the citizens of Baltimore couldn't reach a verdict, says nothing about whether a verdict can be reached in a second trial nor does it say anything about whether a verdict can be reached for any of the other officers. Each officer has his own trial. Each officer's evidence is going to be different and we can't predict what a jury is going to do base on a hung jury, we just can't do it.
MURPHY, JR.: No, I don't know how the new trial will be scheduled, whether it will bump any of the other trials or whatever. We won't learn that until tomorrow. And that will be public.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is the family disappointed? I know you said they're not upset. Are they disappointed?
MURPHY, JR.: They're only disappointed that there was no verdict. Again, the family's position has always been that they want justice. And they know that the only people in a position to bring about justice are that judge and that jury. And you have heard that that jury could not reach a verdict. And you know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUILFOYLE: And you have been listening to a press conference being held on behalf of the family of Freddie Gray. Again, the jury in this case, a mistrial, we don't know yet what the split was in terms of the mistrial and how the jurors saw it, but again, there may be a decision and a question about proceeding to a retrial that has not been decided yet, significant that the family attorney said that the family is not angry, so no one else should be. A Further question said, "Were they disappointed that there was no verdict?" Well, just because of the fact that they would like to see an outcome specified or determined one way or the other, this may go down the road. Again, they said the road to justice has many bumps on it. We're joined by Leland Vittert, who is standing by live, outside the courthouse. Leland?
LELAND VITTERT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You know Kimberly, what was probably most interesting was how well-prepared the police were for some type of violence. Hundreds of riot officers brought in from around the state and absolutely nothing going on outside the courthouse. There were 20 or so people who were a little disruptive and shouted and chanted those kinds of things. Two were arrested for failure to disperse when the sheriff's deputies came out and tried to get them to move along and perhaps get out of the street where they're not supposed to be, those kinds of things. But we have no way seen the kind of explosion or mass protest or even rioting, of course that we say back in April following Freddie Gray's death.
Also interesting is how little we know about what happened inside of the jury room. There is a gag order in effect on the prosecutors, on the defense attorneys, on the jury as well. This judge has been very, very tough when it comes to anything leaking out from this case, and we've been told by the court we will never know the split between the jury. It could have been 11 to 1 for a conviction. It could have been 11 to 1 for in acquittal. And these were for fairly serious charges against Officer William Porter, including involuntary manslaughter. All told they've couldn't got 25 years of convicted on all forecast. Now we have this mistrial. We'll learn tomorrow in terms of what the calendar will look like going forward. Not only for William Porter, but also for those the other five officers, Kimberly, that been charged in Freddie Gray's death. So, as Freddie Gray's family pointed out, the road to justice here is a long one.
GUILFOYLE: You know, it's such an important point that you bring out about the judge, because one of the key things that determined Leland, in the district attorney, I was by the prosecutors is whether or not proceed forward with a retrial. In our office, we used to say it was like a seven- five split for the D.A.'s side, you would say that it was called a bad hung. It was not a strong likelihood of reconviction on -- conviction retrial. Like you said, the judge has been very good with secrecy, keeping things private, but you know, somehow things have a way of leaking it out. Let's talk for a second Leland, about the jury composition. It was seven black -- four black women, three black men, five whites -- three white women and two white men. So certainly, representative of the community there, because there was also a lot of calls about whether or not there should have been a change of venue.
VITTERT: Well, exactly. And remember, jury selection was filled with motions by the defense for mistrials, because during jury selection you could hear protesters chanting no justice, no peace. The defense thought that was a reason for mistrial. Obviously, they wanted to change a venue, didn't get it. And then moving forward of course, you have to think about during the trial, there was the letter that came out from the Baltimore public schools. The defense wanted a mistrial over because the jurors may have heard about that as well, so a huge focus on who this jury was. And Kimberly, as you would know, the prosecutors were very careful in their jury selection here. Because ordinarily, people who would have been pro prosecutorial jurors were seen as pro-defense jurors and vice versa, so jury selection was something they carried an awful a lot of weight in this case.
GUILFOYLE: All right. And Juan has a question for you Leland.
JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Leland, do you think that the fact that the city agreed to a settlement with the family in any way, prejudices the judicial proceeding?
VITTERT: Excellent question. And the judge asked about that during jury selection. He said, "How many of the 150 or so jurors that were called, how many of you know about the settlement with the family?" And it was every single juror who knew that the city had given Freddie Gray's family $6.4 million before the first trial of any officer. Now the mayor of the city defended that by saying, "look, it was the financially prudent thing to do here." But you might remember Juan, that the police union here blasted that decision, saying that it really prejudiced the jury. Only the jurors would know, and so far, they're not talking.
GUILFOYLE: Yeah, Leland, great point and question by Juan, because usually, that will prejudge the case. It can affect jury selection, like you said, all the jurors had heard about it. Say well, the city paid out, someone must be guilty. The path that's usually followed is a criminal trial then followed subsequently by a civil case and they didn't even bother to even consider trying the case civilly, they just gave a substantial settlement.
VITTERT: Well, exactly. And there was a lot of anger here in the city about what message that sends in terms of paying out this to Freddie Gray's family. Not only in terms of what message does it send vis-.-vis, the officers and their right to a fair trial of these six officers, but what message it sends to the police department and to other police officers. As you remember, Baltimore has seen a huge spike in crime since the Freddie Gray riots. Largely, be they say police officers now aren't willing to go out and be tough because of what happened here.
GUILFOYLE: All right. Well, Leland, thank you so much for that update. We hope that there is peace in the city tonight. And we're going to take a quick break, our thoughts on last night's presidential debate, next.
DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: The GOP candidates met for their fifth debate last night, seven weeks before the all-important first election contest in the nation. There was the usual Trump/Jeb dust-up, the resurgent Chris Christie and a flighty Kasich. But perhaps, the biggest moment of the evening was this exchange over surveillance between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are now at time when we need more tools, not less tools. And that tool we lost the metadata program was a valuable tool that we no longer have at our disposal.
TED CRUZ, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Marco knows what he's saying isn't true. You know, Mark Levin wrote a column last week that says that the attack ads his Super PAC is running, that are saying the same thing that they are knowingly false and they are, in fact, Alinsky-like attacks like Barack Obama.
RUBIO: But promise you, the next time there is attack on -- an attack on this country, the first thing people are do want know is, why didn't we know about it and why didn't we stop it? And the answer better not be, because we didn't have access to records or information that would have allowed us to identify these killers before they attack us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: We got a lot to get to. Start with that Greg, this is an issue on surveillance and foreign policy that basically, if the Republican Party has a big tent, there's a group on one side and one on the other, and I think that was the debate last night that where they come down.
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: It's fantastic, though, the diversity, though. In that, you don't see this diversity on the democrat side, they're all in lock-step. And how different would the world have been now if the fifth debate, the one we had last night, had actually been the first. If we had taken terror and national security as seriously as we do now, if we had done that months ago -- this debate last night aligns perfectly with the desires and the priorities of a nation, there are no detours, you know, about polar bears or childhood obesity or closing GITMO. When you compare it to what will happen this Saturday, where there's nothing diverse about the democratic field, it's a uniform flock of people saying the same thing, "This was incredibly refreshing." I disagree with Ted Cruz. I think he argued persuasively his side. I'm more the side of Rubio about the programs. I thought they both did really, really well.
PERINO: I know they both made amazing good points on it. Kimberly, what did you think of about that particular exchange?
GUILFOYLE: Yeah, I mean, I enjoyed it, to be honest. I thought this is substantive. These are the issues I want to hear about. It wasn't, you know, personal attacks. It was like, let's talk about the merits. Let's talk about where you stand, what your viewpoints are, what I can expect from you if you're the president, et cetera. So that was something for the audience to really start to make some decisions about, right? And I enjoy kind of a good sport like that, and debate back and forth and going back at it. So for me, I thought it was excellent and also revealing.
PERINO: What did you think, Eric?
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: So I'm such a geek, I watched it a second time. I watched last night, but I've watched it again today. And the interaction between Cruz and Rubio is really, really striking. I thought Rand will jump in on Cruz's side, it was interesting and they brought Chris Christie, and to jump in on Cruz's -- on Rubio's side.
GUILFOYLE: Rubio side.
BOLLING: So Greg's right, there's the juxtaposition of the two thoughts on metadata. But the whole debate was about national security, foreign policy, terrorism -- fantastic.
GUILFOYLE: Wasn't it?
BOLLING: I absolutely loved it.
BOLLING: I love the Donald Trump/Jeb Bush going at it. I thought both of them did well.
BOLLING: I don't think either one of them outdid each other. They're both - - they're both what I like.
PERINO: Shall we play a little sound?
BOLLING: Oh, you have it?
PERINO: Even though you've seen it twice, we have this from Trump and -- Trump -- Trump and Bush. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEB BUSH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He's a chaos candidate. And he'd be a chaos president. He would not be the commander-in-chief we need to keep our country safe.
Look, the simple fact is, if you think this is tough and you're not being treated fairly.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This isn't tough and easy.
BUSH: Imagine what it's going to be like dealing with whom?
TRUMP: I wish he was always a (inaudible).
BUSH: Or dealing with President Xi or dealing with the Islamic terrorism that exists.
TRUMP: Oh, yeah.
BUSH: This is a tough business to run for president.
TRUMP: Oh, yeah. I know. I know you're a tough guy Jeb. I know.
BUSH: It is. And we need to have a leader that is.
TRUMP: Really tough.
BUSH: You're never going to be president of the United States.
TRUMP: You're really tough
BUSH: By soaking your way to the presidency.
TRUMP: Oh, let see. I'm at 42 and you're at three.
BUSH: It doesn't matter.
TRUMP: So far I'm doing better.
BUSH: It doesn't matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: A lot of people liked that exchange.
BOLLING: Can I -- I did. I like it.
PERINO: I do.
BOLLING: I like to see how.
GUILFOYLE: It's fun.
PERINO: I don't like it.
GUILFOYLE: Oh you didn't?
BOLLING: Well you see -- and Jeb has done this in the past and in prior debates, where he throws something at Donald, Donald will come back and smack him back real hard. And then Jeb kind of lay back, but he didn't. They dusted it up a little bit. I like the Cruz/Rubio/Rand thing going on. I found Ben Carson a lot more in to it. Like he -- in the past debates he seemed a little bit too late, that for me, he stepped up. I'm not sure I like everything he was saying. He certainly.
GUILFOYLE: He twelve shot.
BOLLING: He was certainly a lot more -- lively. Let's put it that way.
GUILFOYLE: And he does.
BOLLING: Carly, just fell a little flat for me. And Kasich felt flat.
PERINO: Let's get to another person and we'll get Juan's thoughts on this. This is Governor Chris Christie who did not make the main stage at the previous debate, but was resurgent. And, by all accounts, by a lot of people, that he did very well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CHRISTIE, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If your eyes are glazing over like mine, this is what it's like to be on the floor of the United States Senate.
CHRISTIE: I mean -- endless debates about how many angels on the head of a pin from people who have never had to make a consequential decision in an executive is position. The fact is for seven years, I had to make these decisions after 9/11. Make a decision about how to proceed forward with an investigation or how to pull back, whether to use certain actionable intelligence or whether not to. And yet, they continue to debate about this bill and the subcommittee and what -- nobody in America cares about that. What they care about is -- are we going to have a president who actually knows what they're doing to make these decisions?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: Juan, do you think Chris Christie is actually bridging gaps here that the others are missing as they're down in the weeds?
WILLIAMS: Well, no. I think he's making the point that he has real experience. And that he wants to portray himself as someone who is capable of dealing in real-time in real terms with difficult decisions on national security and the other folks, even the other governors. But certainly the senators, the three first-term senators just don't have that experience. And I think he did well in the debate for that reason, because it was a clear, distinct message. If you watched that debate, you know what Chris Christie is selling. And I think a lot of people would say, "You know what, I feel more comfortable with that." Now let me just get back to two other points that have been raised; one, what a distorted debate. My God, no talk about education, no talk about immigration.
GUTFELD: That's the point. It's about national security.
WILLIAMS: Oh no, that was such a mistake. Because I think that what you got.
WILLIAMS: Is a distortion of all that faces our country.
GUTFELD: It's the number one priority for Americans.
WILLIAMS: It's not -- yeah, 16 percent.
WILLIAMS: Let me just go on.
GUTFELD: Where did you get that number?
GUTFELD: Where did you pull that from?
GUILFOYLE: From Valerie Jarrett.
BOLLING: Number one.
BOLLING: Number one.
WILLIAMS: No, at 16 percent.
BOLLING: No, that's incorrect.
WILLIAMS: And you know why it's number one? It's number one because.
GUTFELD: We fear monger.
WILLIAMS: Are the media and the cable news and the talk radio for republicans.
WILLIAMS: Is hyping it to no end.
GUTFELD: Did you -- you talk radio --
GUTFELD: Shot up those people in San Bernardino.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. Oh get out of town. Now let me.
GUTFELD: By the way, this is my monologue next segment so...
WILLIAMS: Let me go back to.
GUILFOYLE: And the sharp.
WILLIAMS: Who raised it earlier? Let me just go back to the debate between Cruz and Rubio. I thought.
PERINO: Like you throw at some chum in the water like that.
GUILFOYLE: Yeah, we got just stand down.
WILLIAMS: Well, I'm glad. I'm glad, I'm glad.
WILLIAMS: I don't want to lose the table around here.
GUTFELD: You grow almost as loud as your tie.
WILLIAMS: Oh, here we go, here we go.
BOLLING: No. I just want to point out that.
GUILFOYLE: What is that?
WILLIAMS: It's futile for me, folks.
BOLLING: No, no, no, if democrats agree.
BOLLING: Democrats agree that the number one issue, the number one topic and number one concern in America is national security. So it's not just republicans and right-wingers.
WILLIAMS: No, that's not true.
PERINO: Can I just send to you in?
WILLIAMS: It's the economy and jobs. And it has risen among everyone.
BOLLING: Look at that.
WILLIAMS: But in that last poll it was like 9 percent of democrats, 25 percent of republicans.
PERINO: Can I --
WILLIAMS: And that's after this interminable focus in the campaign and all the echo-chamber in conservative media.
PERINO: Can I defend that?
GUTFELD: Oh, and that conservative media attacked Paris, that was something else.
WILLIAMS: Oh please.
GUILFOYLE: Go, Dana
PERINO: One more try. I'm going to defend them, because when you have nine candidates and you have that limited, even though it was two hours and a bit, and you have that much material to get through, just as in the Crubio -- Crubio?
PERINO: Again. I did it again. Cruz and Rubio exchange. You heard somebody then from Siberia.
PERINO: One of the other candidates say, wait, let me jump in there. So you -- and just as you start to get to something where you can really drill down and understand the world view of one of the candidates, they got a little bit off-track. So I thought that having a debate on foreign policy, but that's fine for me. First of all, remember, it's republicans who have submitted to as many debates. The democrats are actually holding their debates basically, in the back room of a bar.
WILLIAMS: I'm all for that.
PERINO: They could not find.
WILLIAMS: I agree with you on that.
PERINO: On a Saturday night.
WILLIAMS: I -- but you know what, I thought that Governor Christie was right when you said most people watching the debate -- watching Rubio go against Cruz, they don't know who is telling the truth, who is right, who is wrong. And so it just strikes you as two guys who are looking to take each other on to pull one down for a political purpose.
GUTFELD: Well, is it --
WILLIAMS: But I will say this. This morning, The Wall Street Journal was very clear in saying that Cruz had been slippery, and it was a matter of bad character because the United States still has a metadata program, and you can go and get a court order and achieve so many of these goals. And you stop and think -- why is Cruz doing that?
PERINO: Well, if you look at the Glenn Kessler fact-checker, the Washington Post guy, I think he had a lot to say about a lot of the different answers on -- but I guess we can -- you've heard it here first. We could -- we combine the candidates, you've got Cruzbio and Trumb.
GUTFELD: It smells great.
GUTFELD: The one thing that -- the thing that kicks me off most and I think it happened twice in the debate, when two candidates started to get to spar.
GUTFELD: Another candidate.
GUTFELD: Would interrupt and try to go, no, no, no, no, no, that's not who we are. Yes, let them spar. Let them fight. It's not because it's entertaining, but you are not the referee in this. If two people are going to go at it, you let them go at it. You learn a lot, you see more about their character. You don't break up a fight at McDonalds at 2:00 a.m., do you?
GUTFELD: It's stupid.
PERINO: I would.
WILLIAMS: Oh my, gosh, Dana.
GUTFELD: I don't believe that. And you'll never at McDonalds at 2:00 a.m.
PERINO: I don't want people to fight. Anyway --
GUILFOYLE: Everybody gets better.
PERINO: We're going to continue on this topic. We got a lot more to talk about, about last night's debate, so stay tuned, we'll be right back.
BOLLING: All right. Now we're going to go a little in-depth on the debate last night. Let's start out with this, you knew it was going to come, you knew it was going to come early -- well, it certainly did, Donald Trump on his idea of banning Muslims -- watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I began this journey six months ago. I began it talking about other things. And those things are things I'm very good at. And maybe that's why I'm center stage, people saw it, people liked it, people respected it. A month ago, things changed. Radical, Islamic terrorism came into effect even more so than it has been in the past, people like what I say, people who respect what I say and we've opened up a very big discussion that needed to be opened up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: So what do you say K.G.? And not only that, he -- they like what he said and his polls numbers have gone up since this.
GUILFOYLE: Yeah. I mean look, every time that he kind of you know, pokes the cage and brings up something that maybe people are kind of thinking, they might even feel guilty about thinking it. They're like, well, he said it. And so there's a little bit of like identification or OK, this is a different way to do things. It's working very well for him because he's a businessman. He knows how to market and he knows how to brand. So he's very good at driving his message. And you know, monopolizing media time, because what else is anybody saying or doing to kind of garner that kind of attention and thought-provoking, you know -- coverage.
BOLLING: In fact, all the other candidates, pushback on Trump's Muslim ban.
GUTFELD: Yes, well, because there are some real issues that you have to deal with in terms of immigration and visas, and when you say ban all Muslims, that doesn't really help your case.
The interesting thing, though, is this is part of the pattern of Trump, which is you say something that is alarming, and then you start modifying it.
So then it wasn't like ban all Muslims; ban some Muslims. You know, a temporary pause. You start changing it. And O'Reilly made a great point yesterday on his show: Trump can say these things, because nobody believes him. Like when he said kill all their families. That's because nobody really things he's going to do that.
So Trump actually has the benefit of people knowing he's saying these things for shock value but he doesn't really mean it. And that's why he succeeds. It's brilliant.
PERINO: You know, in the -- in his book, his favorite book, "The Art of the Deal"...
GUILFOYLE: "Art of the Deal."
PERINO: ... he says that hyperbole is very useful and that he's used it in business. And I think that's partially it, right? He'll say something that's shocking...
GUTFELD: It's called lying, but here it's hyperbole.
PERINO: I just -- on that issue in particular, I think that -- I thought Jeb Bush had a good point about the need -- and maybe the others made it, too. But the need for us to have cooperation from Muslims around the world. So the modification comes afterwards, but the only thing they heard was, like with the Mexican piece, is that you start modifying it, but still, the first thing that you said is what they remember.
And introducing a religious test for immigration in America would be new. And so I think that it was worthwhile for them to push back on it. And if you look at the questions from the Facebook audience as they kept putting those in, those young people are definitely thinking, "I'm not for that." But maybe they're taking another look at it. I'm not sure, but I think that they were saying, "We're not for this."
BOLLING: Across the board, though, there is support for it.
WILLIAMS: Support for the ban?
WILLIAMS: I think support...
GUTFELD: Across what board?
BOLLING: I don't know. Both sides -- both sides...
GUTFELD: What organization?
GUTFELD: The Ouija board.
BOLLING: Let me -- let me ask you this. Let me -- there were variations of Trump's idea, with Rand Paul says don't ban Muslims; ban people from certain countries.
WILLIAMS: Yes. That would get more support. But I think that it plays. Again, it plays to people being very anxious and fearful at this moment in our politics. And people are going to go for some steps that would be seen as radical extreme in other moments. And he plays to it. You were taking about hyperbole, and he gets away with it, because no one knows it's true.
I've got to tell you, I think it drives the conversation in the country, and it changes the parameters of what we consider to be acceptable debate.
GUTFELD: Like if you go this far -- if you go this far, then maybe you can get this.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Or something like -- I think what Eric said about, well, let's talk about not allowing people from countries that have terror networks established and terror -- so should we consider that?
That to me is a more reasonable...
BOLLING: Rand Paul put up...
WILLIAMS: Let me just say where I think this goes over the line. And I thought this was revealing in the debate last night. Is you talk about carpet bombing? Carpet bombing a city where some terrorists are located? I think all the candidates were put on the defensive. You're OK with killing innocent civilians?
BOLLING: Carson addressed that, though. Hugh Hewitt -- Hugh Hewitt posed that question that way.
WILLIAMS: To Carson. That was to Carson on...
BOLLING: It was to Carson.
WILLIAMS: Yes, yes, yes. That was about the Trump thing about killing the families.
BOLLING: Right. A fair way to do that. I thought that was very unfair.
WILLIAMS: But you know what? Apparently the audience...
PERINO: Carpet bombing, that's what...
BOLLING: But he said carpet bombing, killing young children, and women and families.
WILLIAMS: That's what it means, Eric.
PERINO: If you decide to do carpet bombing. No, you do see...
GUTFELD: You're not actually bombing carpets, you know.
PERINO: Your tweet on that last night was hilarious, about the ancient carpet bomber.
GUTFELD: Thank you.
PERINO: It's very good.
WILLIAMS: Back to Eric.
GUILFOYLE: Special moment.
WILLIAMS: What did you think? What did you think?
BOLLING: I just thought it was unfair. I thought there was more...
PERINO: Why is that unfair? If you say you were for carpet bombing.
BOLLING: No, no. That was to Ben Carson.
PERINO: Cruz has also said to carpet bomb, right?
BOLLING: And the audience didn't like it either.
GUILFOYLE: Cruz jumped in on it.
WILLIAMS: No, no, Carson. The question from Hugh Hewitt to Carson was would you -- you know, would you kill children, innocent children who are parts of the families?
PERINO: And then Carson's answer, though, is like, "I have to operate on children. I had to go into their brains, and I tell them beforehand." Like OK, that -- that part of the debate lost.
WILLIAMS: But you know, the audience booed Hewitt.
BOLLING: I did, too, when I saw it.
GUTFELD: What's wrong with having a tough question?
WILLIAMS: I don't know. I don't know.
GUTFELD: We're talking about guys you can fight. Candidates you can fight. You know, they can make fun of anybody and everybody. You ask them a tough question, everybody's skin gets thin. Deal with the questions.
PERINO: Well, carpet bombing is a serious thing.
GUTFELD: It is.
BOLLING: And obviously, Greg, as you well know, it depends how you phrase things, how you word things, how things are interpreted.
GUTFELD: But they use what you say.
BOLLING: The implication is...
GUILFOYLE: You're saying the question was inflammatory. Like someone would be for -- no, no one's for killing innocents or women or children.
Exactly. But what is the consequence of carpet bombing?
GUILFOYLE: The people who do that are ISIS.
Well, what they're saying is you're not able to carpet bomb a certain specific area that's, like, quadroned off in the middle of the desert where there aren't going to be civilian casualties.
GUTFELD: Right. So then what do you carpet bomb?
GUILFOYLE: So what are you going to do? Toss some leaflets, everybody out?
GUTFELD: Well, that wasn't what they were talking about. But they were talking about carpet bombing something.
PERINO: Cruz said he would carpet bomb.
GUTFELD: Yes. What I found interesting...
GUILFOYLE: We could increase our air campaign. Put it that way. But ISIS does hide amongst innocents.
GUTFELD: We didn't talk about this. When Hugh Hewitt asked Cruz why he disagrees with Trump. It was like watching a bullied kid get asked by a principal, "Is this guy bullying you?" in front of the bully.
It was like, Cruz just goes, "I'm not going to talk about it. Let's move on."
BOLLING: All right. Moving on, let's do that. Ahead, some in the liberal media weren't happy the debate focused on terror last night. Greg with more on that next.
GUTFELD: Kind of weird.
What's the post-debate lead on Politico? Quote, "Yes, terrorism is important, but suddenly it's crowding out everything else that matters," end quote.
You could have written that yourself a week ago. As we said before, both the media and our president can barely hide their disdain for your terror concerns. To them it's some trumped-up boogeyman that shoves their real concerns off the map. Icebergs, football mascots, mean-spirited Halloween costumes. They all go away.
But the criticism that one topic gets all the attention is bogus. You think the media would have been ticked off if the debate had been all about Ferguson? Of course not. And others will say there are things far deadlier than ISIS and that's true. So maybe last night should have been about accidents, strokes or lower respiratory disease. All kill more than ISIS. But the difference is such risks contain no intent. The bathtub isn't trying to get you to slip and fall.
But behind ISIS is a desire that isn't just homicidal, but suicidal, making it apocalyptic in aim. The end of the world is their lotto ticket and they only need to get it right once. It's a simple point, which is why the left doesn't get it. Instead they see harm as intent-free, which is why a t-bone is no better than a terrorist.
This distraction hides the changing nature of risk and the likelihood that something wicked is coming our way. So while terror might not be the leading cause of death for now, disregarding it won't keep it that way -- Juan.
WILLIAMS: Well, I hear you loud and clear. So I want to -- I want to come back at you.
GUILFOYLE: You want to revise your statement?
WILLIAMS: Revise my what?
GUTFELD: Revise your statement, sir?
GUILFOYLE: Revise your previous statement, sir?
WILLIAMS: No, no, no. I wanted to talk to Greg. So I had two points to make.
WILLIAMS: One is I think the statistics that you cited are very clear. That not only can you fall down, you can have a car accident, I mean can you go on and on about things that will kill you more quickly than terrorists.
WILLIAMS: But that's -- so if it's killing, I just I think this is way overblown.
But the second part is, Greg, do you really believe that ISIS is going to come and take over the United States?
GUTFELD: No, no, no. I have a very clear view of this. When you marry apocalyptic vision to modern technology like a drone, and you can figure out how to put anthrax in a drone, all you do you fly it over a stadium. You kill thousands people. ISIS wants to do that.
WILLIAMS: But they haven't done it, Greg. I mean, yes...
GUTFELD: Yes, 9/11 didn't happen in 2000.
WILLIAMS: At this point, you know what? But at this point, it's apocalyptic vision, and I think it's candidates, Republicans seeking the nomination who are stirring the base by playing to the fears and alarm in their community.
GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh. It's just sad.
GUTFELD: Well, that's your opinion, and it's wrong.
WILLIAMS: That's why I asked you. I wanted to tell me why you think I'm wrong.
GUTFELD: But you know what's funny? Hypocrisy that Juan is expressing here, K.G. Liberals bring up fear-mongering, just like they did, but then they tell us we are destroying the planet...
GUTFELD: ... with our hairspray.
GUILFOYLE: And OK, only a little bit, though. And liberals out there on the Democratic Party, though, never want to accept responsibility for the chaos and loss of life and destruction that their PC policies, in fact, inflict on us. That's the hard part. When you look at the cities that are struggling and having these problems? Who's running them?
WILLIAMS: By the way...
GUILFOYLE: And I'm...
WILLIAMS: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is a wonderful thing. Thank God, because I...
GUILFOYLE: Flattery will not save you this time.
WILLIAMS: No. It will never save me. It will never save me but...
GUILFOYLE: My point is, why do you assume bad intentions always on people that are Republicans or conservatives?
GUTFELD: No, no, no. Because we don't do that about Democrats.
GUILFOYLE: Never, never. Wait. You're not supposed to be on my side.
GUILFOYLE: Don't you think that any of those candidates, those fine qualified people that stood up there last night and spoke with genuine interest and concern about the safety of this country, about national security, about the protection of our communities and schools and the nation at large -- had good intentions? That maybe that's actually what they really believe? And that they do see this as a primary focus issue? Especially in light of real events that have just transpired?
WILLIAMS: Well, and the previous thing we talked about things like carpet bombing, well, it's hyperbole. They don't really mean that. And, you know, it's important, because it informs the conversation, Kimberly. I think it's very political. Yes, I agree with you.
GUTFELD: I think it's political.
BOLLING: Here's what I think, and this Pew research, I just paged through that again. Here's why it's so important.
Americans, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, Americans view the most important problem to America, terror, ISIS, national security. Thirty-two percent, the second one at 23 percent. Is economic issues. A year ago, it was only 9 percent for terror and 34 percent for...
WILLIAMS: And what has happened recently? San Bernardino, Paris?
BOLLING: Of course. Of course. But that's why it matters. That's why we talk about it. That's why we debate it last night.
GUILFOYLE: But you know what?
GUTFELD: You know what? It shouldn't be a spike. We shouldn't forget. We should always remember these things, Dana.
PERINO: It is -- the argument that they're trying to make is that it's irrational fear to be worried about terrorism.
GUTFELD: Yes. Yes.
PERINO: But that it's totally rational to be worried and commit millions of dollars on climate change.
PERINO: In their mind that's what -- that's what it is. But here's the thing: they're going to have to just deal with what's going to happen, because at this point Paris and San Bernardino unfortunately did happen, and we weren't able to stop it. People are very focused on. We have to be able to keep ourselves safe that so we can then go on to the next thing, which is the economy. Like, you can't do anything. It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You have to keep the country safe first.
GUTFELD: Very good.
GUILFOYLE: And bottom line, last night was about these candidates stepping up to say we want to hold Barack Obama and his failed politics and administration responsible for events like that have occurred, Tashfeen Malik and the security gaps and lapses that resulted in this terror attack on U.S. soil, the second greatest since 9/11. And that, if elected, they will reverse those failed policies, and Hillary Clinton is part of that administration, as well.
GUTFELD: Well done.
It was the fifth GOP debate. But apparently, it changed the game for some Republican voters. You'll hear from them next.
WILLIAMS: It sounds like night's debate had a huge impact on Republican voters. Frank Luntz did another one of his focus groups. Listen to the responses he got when he asked voters if any of them changed their minds on a favorite candidate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Raise your hands if you changed your mind tonight from when you walked in here. Raise your hands. There are 11 people in here. Who did you switch from?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I went from Rubio to Cruz.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because he was much stronger tonight.
LUNTZ: Who did you switch from?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Trump to Cruz.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very presidential. He has controlled the issues.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fiorina to Christie, because he's on point, on the issues that really matter.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Carson to Christie, because I can trust him as my president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Paul to Cruz because he's going to be really aggressive defending what he believes in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump to Christie, because I believe in him, and he was 2,000 percent more presidential than anybody else tonight.
LUNTZ: We had a significant change and in the five debates that we've now done these sessions, more people switched in this debate than any other.
WILLIAMS: Wow, K.G., so listen to this. I want to ask, they think Cruz was believable, trustworthy. Did you have that sense?
GUILFOYLE: You know, I can see how they. That was the take-away. I thought everybody did very well last night in terms of seeming more presidential, more prepared. They're getting better at this, right?
Right away we knew from the beginning that Rubio and Cruz were very good and skilled debaters. That's why the interchange -- interplay between the two of them was kind of so enjoyable and also probative.
But in this you saw people that are really responding to leadership, to firm positions. To someone that doesn't equivocate and seem uncertain about the ideas that they have. If you listen to further soundbites from that focus group they said, "Look, I like the specifics idea." But kill ISIS. Not contain, et cetera, et cetera. So I...
WILLIAMS: So Eric, Trump won Twitter. But you see this back and forth. I didn't hear Trump's name once on the Luntz thing.
BOLLING: And that means what?
WILLIAMS: I don't know, they're switching.
BOLLING: Look, here's -- one person switched there. They went back there. My guess, I agree with Kimberly, everyone did very well. They're getting better at it. They're more prepared. They bring follow-up and not just throw the poll-tested comment out there and they let it sit. They follow up with if they get pushback. I think they are getting better. I don't think anyone moved places.
PERINO: I agree with that. I think if you liked your candidate before the debate, you can keep your candidate for another eight weeks until the voting starts. Now, I also think it shows that there's still movement. And they're trying on dresses now, and they're not exactly sure. They're like, well, maybe I could go from a Carson to a Christie. And maybe next debate they might change their mind or they talk to their friends. So I think it's still fluid.
GUILFOYLE: It's like black tie optional. So short or long dress.
GUTFELD: Are you saying they're cross-dressing? I don't think my candidate can be a cross-dresser. You know what those people said, when they asked him why that he could -- he or she could win. And that's the thing that's disturbing to me is none of them said, "I believe this person could win."
PERINO: To beat Hillary, you mean?
GUTFELD: Yes. That's the only thing that matters.
WILLIAMS: Greg, if I was sitting with you to watch the debate, what are you eating?
PERINO: Very little.
GUTFELD: Very little. Drinking, however,
WILLIAMS: Drinking! Drinking.
GUILFOYLE: Can't you tell by his beak (ph)?
WILLIAMS: Republicans are drinking. That's what's going on. "One More Thing," up next.
GUILFOYLE: It's time for "One More Thing." Ms. Dana with the yummy.
PERINO: All right. So I want to make Kimberly's day, so my "One More Thing" is fantastic. I want to show you this calendar, this Charleston Animal Society. Firefighter calendar for 2016.
Kimberly, I'm about to make your day. Not only is there a calendar. This is firefighters that raise money for Toby's Fund. They save thousands of animals, and they have...
GUILFOYLE: Yes. Thank God.
PERINO: They have video, I think, here of the firefighters with the rescue animals. And Kimberly, they do such great work, and then there's an online voting thing.
GUILFOYLE: You have no idea.
PERINO: Charleston Animal Society. This will be your favorite Christmas gift.
GUILFOYLE: I really love it. I recommend firemen for everyone. They are so loving and sensitive. They have 401(k)s, pensions. They save people. They love animals. They're amazing at push-ups.
BOLLING: Did you notice there were dogs in that video?
GUILFOYLE: One of the things I like about them is they're compassionate. We can't open up the inside for you. But trust me, you want to feast your eyes. Sorry.
BOLLING: All right. So we know cops put their lives on the line. Cops get assaulted; cops die on the job. Our friend, Janet Luongo (ph), sent me this. She's making these and trying to get these to as many cops as she can on the front. Says blue lives matter right there with a badge, and on the back it says, "In memory of the fallen." I love this thing. And you know what? They don't get enough people like Janet Luongo (ph).
GUILFOYLE: That's a great shirt, and you're absolutely right.
OK. Mine now. Put down that. It's distracting.
OK, so this is fantastic. Yes, we love strong men, but boy, do we love a strong woman. And guess what, West Point making history, because they named Diana Holland as the first woman commandant of cadets.
GUILFOYLE: She is a brigadier general, Diana Holland, in Iraq and Afghanistan veteran. And this is the first time they've had a female commandant at West Point. It's really incredible. She's going to be the 76th commandant of cadets at a ceremony that is scheduled for January 5. So we're very proud of her and of West Point. I'm very excited about this. She's in charge of all the men.
Oh, and check me out on "Hannity" tonight with Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera with feedback and reaction to the mistrial declared today in the case of Freddie Gray -- Greg.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUTFELD: I hate these people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUTFELD: You know who I hate more than anything? People who make ostentatious wedding proposals. You know, the more dramatic the wedding proposal, the faster the divorce.
This guy, Houston man, actually stopped traffic on I-45 to propose to his girlfriend. And he actually halted traffic. It was actually a woman that was on her way to have a baby, a newborn delivery but was held because of him doing this. And he did this because apparently he had a romantic drive once.
Well, let me tell you something. Here's my plan. What was his name, Vidal (ph) -- his name's Vidal (ph). Here's my plan. I'm going to follow you and I'm going to find out when your nuptials are.
GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God.
GUTFELD: And I'm going to tie up traffic outside that church and you're never going to make it to the altar, because that's what you deserve.
GUILFOYLE: Oh, my goodness. Juan.
WILLIAMS: Well, I went for a walk the other night in midtown New York. And boy, did I -- I tell you, I just became frosty in my feelings, I got to see the Christmas tree all lit up in Rockefeller Center. And then I got to see -- I took some -- even took some pictures. I got pictures of the little drummer boys outside there. And then, of course, you saw what happened in front of Sak's. There's the tremendous light show. Valentino.
GUILFOYLE: All right. Nice job, Juan. Bye.
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.