TRANSCRIPT

Nunes: Surveillance collected about Trump transition team

Reaction and analysis on 'The Five'

 

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 22, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: This is a Fox News Alert. Hello everyone, I'm Kimberly Guilfoyle. We are closely following two big stories tonight, both overseas and on the home front. There was terror attack in London outside parliament today. Three people are dead, including a police officer. The suspect is also dead. Multiple people are hurt. More to come in the moment.

But first to the breaking news out of Washington from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. He announced earlier communications of Trump transition officials and possibly even the president himself may have been monitored by the Obama administration after the election. We're joined now by chief White House correspondent John Roberts with more, John.

JOHN ROHBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Kimberly, good afternoon to you. You know the president have promised us last week that more was going to come on his claims that he was being wiretapped or in some other way surveilled or at least people at Trump Tower were. We don't know if this is what the president was talking about but it certainly would seem to fit along the lines of that narrative when the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes came out today and said that he has been told that it appeared to come from people who would come forward individually and not from some particular organization, that there was incidental collection of U.S. citizens who were associated with the Trump campaign.

Now what we can assume that this is because he didn't really lay it out, is that the NSA, the FBI or other intelligence agencies were listening in to conversations with foreigners who were allowed to be surveilled under the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that people from the Trump campaign may have been on the other end of the telephone and then they were collected along with the intelligence from the foreign national that was being surveilled.

Again Nunes didn't lay it out for us like that but that's probably what it was because that's the way that the intelligence community operates and Nunes did say that he believed that this was under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He said that was all legal. He also pointed out that it wasn't associated with any kind of investigation into Russia or any kind of criminal investigation.

So why is this troubling? Well, Nunes pointed out that the people who were surveilled on the other end of the line, whatever it was, a telephone line or some other form of conversation, who were American citizens were "unmasked." That means that unlike the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act where the identities of American citizens are supposed to be protected and kept absolutely secret, they were unmasked.

Their names were published in an intelligence product. And you remember that Michael Flynn's name actually was made public. So he thought that it was important enough that he just about dropped everything on the Hill, talking to the House Speaker and the head of the CIA and the NSA, came down here in person to brief the president on it. I asked him specifically and I said, "does this vindicate in any other way that will at least give corroboration to the what the president suggested happen (ph) when he tweeted out from Mar-a-Lago a few days after his address to adjourn session of Congress that he was being wiretapped and in any other way surveilled. He said possibly. This is what else I asked the chairman, right here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: He knew that there was some incident of collection because Lieutenant General Michael Flynn was caught talking to Sergey Kislyak. Does this go beyond that and does this qualify the sort of wiretapping that the president was tweeting?

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, it definitely goes beyond what happened to General Flynn. Now, of course we don't actually know yet officially what happened to General Flynn. We just know that his name leaked out but we don't know how it was picked up yet.

ROBERTS: This suggests the president was correct in what he tweeted?

NUNES: It is possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: And shortly after that the president (INAUDIBLE). He was meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He said to some degree, Kimberly, he does feel vindicated by what Chairman Nunes told us this afternoon and of course Nunes will continue to look into this.

GUILFOYLE: All right, excellent. Thanks, John. We're going to take you right now to a live press of this taking place in the capital with Representative Adam Schiff.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: That surveillance was anything but lawful and what people need to understand about foreign intelligence gathering and incidental collection is, if we are listening to two foreign spies for example talking to each other on foreign soil or to representatives of a foreign government and they mention a U.S. person that is incidental collection. It doesn't necessarily mean there is a call from a foreign party to a U.S. person.

Even the mention of a U.S. person is incidental collection, and that name would be masked. If there is a call with a U.S. person or a U.S. person identities are involved at all, those names are masked. But there are proper procedures for unmasking a name. When it is necessary for the intelligence agencies to understand the significance of the intercept and they cannot do that when they names are masked, you can properly unmask the name.

The chairman has provided no evidence that any names that were unmasked were unmasked improperly, and of course without the ability for the community to look at the intercepts, we're not in a position to evaluate whether the procedures were followed or not followed. Moreover, as I understand from my conversation with the chairman, most of the names in the intercepts were in fact masked, and the chairman's concern was that he could still figure out the identities of some of the parties even though the names were masked.

Well, that doesn't mean the masking was improper. And so again, it's impossible to evaluate whether there is any there there in terms of these intercepts without the committee being able to look at them, and thus far, the chair has not provided this evidence to the committee. So this is deeply troubling along many levels but the most significant level is it really impedes our ability to do this investigation the way we should.

I've been part of investigations over conducted properly when the House Intelligence Committee investigated Benghazi and I've been part of investigations that were not, such as the Benghazi Select Committee. It was my hope that our investigation could be conducted properly. It's still my hope that this investigation should be conducted properly, but unfortunately the actions of the chair throw that very much in doubt. And I would be happy to respond to your questions. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two questions, one, what are the Democrats next steps? Are you planning on pulling out of this investigation of the way that he did to the Benghazi inquiry and two, did Chairman Nunes would feel any classified information say by his exposure to the press?

SCHIFF: Well on the first one, we actually stayed on the Benghazi Select Committee, though we knew from the outset that it was essentially going to be a political instrument to tear down Secretary Clinton's numbers. And of course we will have to analyze what this development means. I do think that if there is any chance remaining for us to conduct this investigation, we need to do it.

As I said earlier in the week, we could do a tremendous service to the country if we are able to do a credible investigation and at the end of the day, provide a report to the American people that as Democrats and Republicans on the same page. But if you have a chairman who is interacting with the White House and sharing information with the White House when people around the White House are the subject of the investigation and doing so before sharing it with the committee, it throws a profound doubt over whether that can be done credibly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did Chairman Nunes reveal any classified information today?

SCHIFF: Well, it certainly -- it's certainly inappropriate for us to be discussing whether specific people were the subject of collection or incidental collection to any degree that can divulge who the targets of that surveillance may be. So, I'm not prepared to say that what the chairman said was classified or unclassified. I can say that it is beyond irregular to receive any evidence on this one in the scope of an investigation and clearly if the chairman is right about the content here, it's when the scope of the issues we're looking at about whether masking procedures are followed and whether things are being leaked.

And I would say that the most profound concern here I have is that these actions simply raise enormous doubt about whether the committee can do its work. And I think that more than anything else I've seen, this makes the most profound case for the formation of an independent commission.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To follow-up on his question, on Monday we heard quite a bit about from several committee members, about improper unmasking of individuals who were collected in unwarranted surveillance. What is the fundamental difference between what the chairman did today and what the complaints were on Monday?

SCHIFF: Well first of all, with respect to what we're discussing on Monday, we could actually discuss concrete things. We could, you know, if there were a specific instance where there was an unmasking that we were concerned about, we could ask the questions about it. Here we have no information about who was masked or who was unmasked, and indeed based on what the chairman told me, the names were masked apart from a single name which wasn't necessarily anyone connected with the Trump organization. The concern the chair raised with me was that the names that were masked he believed were associated with the president or his associates --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he unmask the president today?

SCHIFF: I don't know. You know, again, this is the problem. This is the precise problem when the information is not shared with the committee itself. We will be seeking this information. We will be evaluating it and once we've had a chance to review it, I will issue a statement about what I think it says and what I think it doesn't say. But here we're operating on hearsay on hearsay and this is simply not a way to conduct an investigation. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Had the committee did previously briefed about the intercepts in general or had you have any background knowledge about these intercepts. You say you don't have these intercepts. Were you aware of these intercepts? Do members of the committee have information about that?

SCHIFF: Well, it's impossible to know because we don't know what intercepts the chairman is referring to. So again, my assumption from what the chair said is that these are intercepts we don't have. But he also said this doesn't relate to the Russia investigation. So, if it doesn't relate to the Russia investigation, if they were lawfully conducted, and he said there's no reason to believe they weren't, then we wouldn't have them as a part of the investigation.

Now, we have made a request of the intelligence agencies for information about their masking procedures. If indeed it's within the scope of our request then its information we should be getting. And if that's true, and I think the chairman indicated he thought that the information he'd received is within the scope of what we've asked for, then it's a significant question that if this is within the information we've asked for, that the agencies are going to be delivering to us later this week, then why make a statement to the press before we have it? It just begs more questions, frankly, than it answers. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is there any reason to believe, I know we discussed (INAUDIBLE) to clarify, is there any reason to believe that the president or members of his family were people present in these documents?

SCHIFF: You know again, you would have to ask the chairman because he's the only one on the committee that I'm aware of that's been able to see this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he expressed that with you to say I think these people are involved?

SCHIFF: You know, I don't want to characterize precisely what the chair said and I think if you look at what he has said publicly, it's not very clear because he's used words like "may have been" or "it might be" and how can we evaluate the strength of that information? We just can't.

And again, this just underscores why this is not how you conduct an investigation. You don't take information that the committee hasn't seen and present it orally to the press and to the White House before the committee has a chance to vet whether it's even significant. Yes

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) Did you see Chairman Nunes that the committee can move forward (INAUDIBLE)

SCHIFF: I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What were the assurances that you will see (INAUDIBLE).

SCHIFF: Well, you know, actually I expressed my grave concerns about how this was handled and I'm not sure that at this point we're likely to get those kind of assurances. Certainly we're going to have a much more likely discussion of this when we meet as a committee. But it casts quite a profound cloud over our ability to do our work.

And I do think that the concern over Russia intervention in our election is one that permeates the Congress and it's a concern the Democrats have and it's a concern that Republicans have. And I have to think that most of the members of the house want a bipartisan investigation to be done. But this is not the way to do it. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did Chairman Nunes tell you how or where or in what ways did he viewed these documents or was there (INAUDIBLE), and also, you said that you're gravely concerned to criticize the chairman right now but are you considering any sort of more formal (INAUDIBLE).

SCHIFF: This is not a situation I think where you can pursue something like that. You know, we still have a very important job to do, even apart from this investigation. But right now, the country is counting on us because in the House of Representatives, we're the only investigation there is. If we don't do it, no one is going to do it.

Now, perhaps the White House would like it that way, but the American people I think want there to be a credible investigation and if we are not going to conduct it, then we need to have a independent commission do it. And if the chairman is going to continue to go to the White House rather than his own committee, there is no way we can conduct this investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And did he tell you how (INAUDIBLE)

SCHIFF: You know, I don't have a lot of details on it. The most I think he was able to say is that it was shared with him alone so it doesn't appear to have been shared even with the other Republican members of his committee. And so all of us are in the dark and that makes what the chairman did today all the more extraordinary. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have any concerns about the way in which he got this information, where it comes from? He said he doesn't have the documents in his possession but he knows where they are.

SCHIFF: Well, you know, obviously there are a lot of questions. I mean, if this came from people within the intelligence community, then you are looking at sort of a channel for a leak to the press, which raises a whole another category of concerns. If this is within the intelligence community, it ought to be shared with us by the intelligence community. I don't know if that's the source of it. And...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) the NSA, the CIA and I think the FBI.

SCHIFF: You're going to have to ask the chairman. Again, we have no idea where these documents came from, whether they even show what they purport to show but even if they do on the basis of what the chairman said, the underlying fact is still the same. There is no evidence to support the president's contention that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.

So, I'm not sure what the point of this extraordinary process is and I have to hope that this is not part of a broader campaign by the White House aimed to deflect from the director's testimony earlier week. But again, not having seen the documents, not having the chairman share those documents with either Democrats or Republicans on the committee, there is simply no way for us to evaluate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have any idea of how many names were in masked or unmasked?

SCHIFF: I have no idea. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dozens.

SCHIFF: There's no way for us to know. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems like (INAUDIBLE) independent commission is in the hands of Paul Ryan. Have you talked to him about that and do you have plans to do so?

SCHIFF: I certainly intend to do so. The request has been made by our minority leader as well as the entire membership of the -- Democratic membership of the House of Representatives in the form of sponsorship of legislation by my colleagues Eric Swalwell and Elijah Cummings. So, we have certainly made it clear now for many weeks that we ought to follow the model we did after 9/11 where we do an investigation through our intelligence communities -- committees -- but we have a truly independent commission.

And there are two reasons why I think the commission now is more essential than ever. The first is that a commission would have a dedicated staff and resources focused solely on this issue. An investigation of this magnitude really justifies that kind of investment.

Second, it takes it completely out of the political realm and today's events show why that is just so essential. A commission like the 9/11 commission wouldn't have one of its chairs go to the White House when it obtained new information. And we just cannot continue along that kind of a path. So, I think more than anything else today's events have underscored the imperative of an independent commission.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he tell you --

SCHIFF: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did the chairman give you any indication why he decided to go to the White House before he came to you with that information?

SCHIFF: No, and that's a good question for the chairman. I certainly did express my concern that that is simply not the way to conduct a credible investigation. Thank you.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, OK. So we're going to take a listen back to Representatives Nunes and the comments that he made earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NUNES: The reports that I was able to see did not have anything to do with Russia or the Russia investigation.

I think some of it seems to be inappropriate. What I've read seems to me to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal, but I don't know that it's right and I don't know the American people would be comfortable with what I've read. Let us get all the reports.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you suggest the president was correct in what he tweeted?

NUNES: It is possible. I think the president is concerned and he should be. I think he'd like to see these reports.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUILFOYLE: OK, and a quick round of reactions to the news we just heard. Bolling, we'll start with you.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: It's explosive. Today all day long when I heard this news in the midst of the terror going on along, I was like oh my -- what do you lead with? And this I think is massive right here. I know we got to go quickly, but I'm going to talk about it a little bit more --

GUILFOYLE: Go, right (INAUDIBLE) go ahead.

BOLLING: Oh, the break will stay. Cool, thanks. So now we have a leaker or a whistleblower who's confirmed what Trump has kind of alluded to, but more importantly has confirmed the opposite of what the intel department was testifying on Monday in front of the panel where they said there was no surveillance going on in anyone in the Trump administration.

Now we know it's not only Flynn there could -- may or may not be Flynn but there are others with this incidental collection of data which is basically a surveillance. It has to come via surveillance. I mean I'm sure they didn't stand there and take pictures. They did it via data and they did it through a FISA court.

And get this, it has nothing to do with Russia. So there's even further proof that both James Comey and Rogers were less than open with what was actually going on towards the Trump administration by the intel community. It's explosive. We need to -- we jump out here and find out what's going on. And Adam Schiff coming to a microphone and playing games in front of it doesn't fix anything. This is big news.

BOB BEKEL, CO-HOST: Boom, explosive.

BOLLING: It is. It is.

BECKEL: It's a (INAUDIBLE), I mean, can I go now?

GUILFOYLE: Yes, go ahead. We have time. Go ahead.

BECKEL: Thank you. I would like to say that first off the first investigation I had to sought to be Nunes for leaking the information out. Secondly, he didn't tell his Republican colleagues. Third, they said the FISA court authorized the investigation of two foreign nationals that the names may or may not have come up with some people in the Trump administration. Trump said that Barack Obama tapped him. He lied then. The people confirmed that he lied. He's now -- Nunes is down there and what does he accomplish? Two things, he's muddied up the Russia investigation and he's given Trump a little bit of cover for his lies. I mean it is so transparent. And by the way, I hope this wasn't that the White House didn't give him (INAUDIBLE) with anyone.

GUILFOYLE: Bob is upset about leaks now.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: The big picture of whether Trump is vindicated or not, it doesn't matter if it vindicates him wholly because if you take -- this is all about a tweet. It's a tweet in the broadest sense. It doesn't have to do with him being specifically proven correct. The act - - it's like saying you were assaulted but they only grabbed your arm.

Technically they are the same thing. So he is saying like Obama leaked or Obama was tapping me but it turns out that maybe it was the administration doing some kind of incidental collecting. Incidental collecting by the way, the way I look at that, that's like when you take a picture of your wife on vacation and behind you is some stranger picking his nose.

BOLLING: Can I just point out why this really does matter though, because we've understood this was an investigation into Russian ties to the Trump administration. According to Devin Nunes today, it's not the Russians. There had to be a FISA court request for surveillance -- for surveillance of all the people.

BECKEL: An entirely different issue. An entirely different issue.

BOLLING: No, but --

BECKEL: That has nothing to do with Russia.

BOLLING: I know it does matter Bob. On Monday, we heard Comey and Rogers - -

BECKEL: Tell the truth.

BOLLING: -- that there is not -- hasn't been nor is there an on ongoing investigation.

BECKEL: Is there anything to do with Obama tapping Trump --

BOLLING: These two things can't be true.

BECKEL: And Trump lied and Obama didn't.

BOLLING: These two things can't be true.

BECKEL: Do you want to continue to support this guy's lies, go ahead.

GUILFOYLE: Dana.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: I think it raises a lot more questions than it answers. Maybe that's the point. I think that we also know if the White House really wanted to get to the bottom of it, they could do it tonight and get everybody over there. They could look at these warrants. They can find out what the warrants were for.

And that doesn't mean that the warrant -- the FISA warrants weren't legitimate about something that was going on in that area. That doesn't mean that. And also this question of just going to -- if I were Nunes, I think I would've held and just give it a moment so that you can figure out how you can tell your bipartisan colleagues if you want to keep the integrity of the investigation. If you don't, maybe this is the way to do it. I just know that from working in D.C. and knowing that you could say what you're going to say today but what are you going to say in three days when this changes?

And then we'll probably have more information. Maybe nobody was doing anything wrong but it is interesting that this comes one the day that when the White House -- the day after the White House says we should all just move on from this. But then this morning the headline out of the Associated Press is that Paul Manafort, the former chairman of the Trump campaign, did have ties to Russia and they did talk about it so, now there are multiple tracks of this.

Meanwhile, I feel bad for the fact that the American people are waiting for Congress to actually get some things done, and this is really making it difficult to focus on bringing jobs back to America. I think it's bad.

BOLLING: Can I --

GUILFOYLE: Well, Manafort is about prior --

BOLLING: I think there's huge chance that everything was done properly to the letter of the law at the FISA court. My problem again is when you have the intel community basically saying there hasn't been an investigation into the Trump administration, there' not one going on now and now we find out via leak or so --

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: -- incidental collection is not an investigation about certain people.

BOLLING: You have to go to the court to apply for a warrant. And Nunes said this came from, directly from a FISA warrant. Wow.

BECKEL: Can you agree that there may have been an investigation into something else to pick these people up?

BOLLING: No.

BECKEL: Then they should know on the Russia thing.

BOLLING: No, they said there was no investigation into the Trump administration ongoing.

BECKEL: I know but I'm saying if this --

GUILFOYLE: So you're saying what was the purpose of it --

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: -- the Trump transition team were talking to, and so it may not have anything to do with Russia but there was something going on. We don't know --

PERINO: So there is more.

GUTFELD: Yes. It's either foreign agents or maybe its potential criminal activity that has nothing to do with Russia so, it could be something worse. It could be --

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: But even Nunes said this was an investigation to two foreign nationals that had nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

GUILFOYLE: But nevertheless it was incidental collection.

BECKEL: Yes, that's right.

(CROSSTALKJ)

GUTFELD: -- was that it?

BECKEL: No, but you can get picked up as incidental communications.

BOLLING: No one disagrees with that Bob. I said (INAUDIBLE) and the intel community can look into the camera testifying in front of the house, in front of a panel saying it's not going on, now we find out it was. You know what it reminds me of?

PERINO: But what was going on?

BOLLING: When Clapper said NSA wasn't collecting data on all Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: I'm curious. What are you saying they lied about on Monday?

BOLLING: I'm saying that when they were asked specifically is there an ongoing investigation going on and where they targeted? No and no, and now we know that they were and they are.

PERINO: OK, but you don't accept that incidental collection about a different topic is not targeting and investigating them?

BOLLING: I do Dana with the exception of the way it was incidental. It was because it went through the FISA court to do it and you have to be very specific. If you're going --

PERINO: But what was the original FISA court warrant about?

BOLLING: -- you're going after an American. You have to go to --

PERINO: Who were they talking to?

BOLLING: -- if you're going to tap into an American, you have to go to the FISA court.

PERINO: -- they were talking to somebody.

GUTFELD: We don't know anything.

PERINO: This is why I would have held.

GUTFELD: We should have waited. We're such experts.

GUILFOYLE: All right, lots of breaking news today, as you can see so please keep it right on the Fox News Channel. More on this developing story and the London terror attack.

GUTFELD: Welcome back to "The Five." Today's other top story, the terror attack today in London. Benjamin Hall is at the scene at Parliament.

Benjamin, I want to ask you first about the victims. Is there any update on the people that are injured?

BENJAMIN HALL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know that four so far are dead. Among them, the terrorist himself, a policeman and also a 30-year- old woman. And she would have been one of the first, because she was run down on the bridge that you see behind me -- that's Westminster Bridge -- when the attacker veered off the road and onto the sidewalk, knocking down countless civilians who were walking there. Among them, many, many tourists.

Now, that car then went on to the Houses of Parliament, where it rammed into the front gates. And he actually got out. He managed to run inside the courtyard, where he stabbed a policeman, who we now know is one of the ones who passed away. He carried on inside, and then it was at that point that he was shot down by two other armed police.

But the whole area around us was shut down for much of the day. The prime minister had been inside just before this happened. She was ushered away. So London very much on edge at the moment, security everywhere. Helicopters, the river was shut down. This really is a terror attack at the heart of the U.K.

PERINO: Benjamin, what do we know about the suspect?

HALL: Well, very little at this moment. There were a few names bandied around earlier, and they are trying to piece together the connections using a lot of videotape. And of course, there were so many witnesses, because it's such a busy time of day. There is a lot to go with.

But at the moment, still no names to give you, no idea of what drove him but a lot of indications that this was perhaps inspired by ISIS.

BOLLING: Wow. Can you just expand on that a little bit? What would be that indication?

HALL: Well, first of all, I mean, this is a year to the day that the Brussels attacks took place that -- those killed 32 in the airport and also in the subway. It was also vehicle-born, and that is a tactic they've used a lot. ISIS has been actively asking its followers to use vehicles as weapons. It's very hard to stop them, although it's quite an unsophisticated method of attack. There's very little you can do about it. And we've seen that, again, in Nice. We saw it in Berlin. We've seen it in Munich. You know, and we've seen it here twice now.

There was also increased chatter just before the attack took place. And it was on the same day that 68 foreign ministers were meeting in D.C. to discuss the anti-ISIS coalition. A lot of things pointing to this. The technique, everything going on around it. But again, no confirmation yet.

BECKEL: Has anyone taken responsibility? Or has ISIS said anything about this?

HALL: Nothing yet. Of course, you would expect that to come out. You would expect them to take claim if, indeed, it was them. Or if it's not directed by them, it may well be inspired by them. And of course, that's something else that they're trying to get out there at the moment. They ask their followers to carry out attacks just like this. They actually say use vehicles, go out and do this. But no official confirmation from them or claim of responsibility yet.

GUILFOYLE: All right. Any updates regarding Theresa May? Because I understand, you know, she was rushed from close by the scene when this incident occurred.

HALL: Yes, well, she's just been speaking. She came out, and she said that an attack like this would never hurt the values of the U.K., that they would continue standing strong. It would never be affected. The battle against ISIS would continue.

She is hosting -- holding a COBRA meeting tonight. That is the highest security meeting here. And so they will be talking also about who carried this out, who was behind it.

But yes, as you say, very dramatic as she was rushed out of the Parliament building. She had just been in there moments before, giving a speech in Prime Minister's Questions, which is the weekly session that she holds here.

So you know, this very much felt like the U.K. Parliament was under attack when it happened. And the police responded accordingly. Very much an intense situation earlier today.

Back to you.

GUTFELD: All right. Thank you, Benjamin.

Up next, more on today's revelations that President Trump may have been under surveillance after the election.

Plus, there's a big health care vote tomorrow in the House, in case you forgot. Do Paul Ryan and the president have enough votes to repeal and replace Obamacare? Dana Perino spoke earlier with the House speaker. His answer, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: You can ask him anything you want.

BECKEL: Excuse me. I just know -- I now throw it to John Roberts of the White House. Sorry, John.

BOLLING: What's the latest?

BECKEL: You want me to ask John the first question? Good, because I do want to ask John the first question. John, this is the same guy who -- this Nunes, who says that there was no evidence that Donald Trump was wiretapped by Barack Obama. Nothing but nothing in this report, is what he said today, which he shouldn't be saying anyway, has anything to do with Barack Obama and tapping his phone, correct?

GUILFOYLE: Is that a question?

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's correct, Bob. What it has to do with is simply incidental collection of people who were associated with the Trump campaign, who might have either been talking to a foreign national or been brought up in a conversation between two people who were being surveilled.

According to Devin Nunes, there was nothing improper about this collection. What he is worried about, though, is the specific aspect of people being unmasked, their identity being put into an intelligence document, an intelligence product.

The FISA regulations say strictly that the intelligence community must take pains to obscure and protect the identity of any American who is caught up in this incidental collection. And Nunes is at pains to know whether to that happened the way it was supposed to happen or not, Bob.

BECKEL: Fast follow-up, John, was Nunes -- don't you think it was a little unusual for the chairman not to talk to his committee before he hightails it down to the White House and says these things to the White House and then comes out and sort of murkies [SIC] the water for Trump, as far as I can see.

ROBERTS: Well, certainly, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, believes that. In fact, you saw the press conference, you carried it just a little while ago, where he thinks that this has jeopardized the integrity of the entire investigation into what Russia was trying to do during the election campaign and whether or not there was any kind of connection between what the Russians were doing and the Trump campaign. So he's on board with you on that, Bob. No question.

BECKEL: Go ahead.

BOLLING: So John, let's just explain for the audience so we understand the relevance of the FISA court.

The reason why the FISA court is relevant is that you need a FISA warrant if you're going to surveil an American. You don't need a FISA warrant if you're going to surveil a foreigner that you think is creating some sort of terror operation going on here. But if you're going to surveil the American, you've got to go to the court for that warrant.

The intel department told us that that hadn't happened. Now we know it has happened. And you point out something important: it also wasn't regarding the Russians. So there's more going on than we've been led to believe all week in front of testimony in front of Congress.

ROBERTS: Well, you know, we haven't had it confirmed by any -- through any official channels yet, but we're led to believe through the reporting and leaks that Michael Flynn had been talking on several occasions with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. That was part of that routine intelligence gathering where, if you're talking to a foreign national, we listen in on these people all the time, because we want to know what they're doing. So it seems like this might be, at least, part of that.

But when I asked chairman Nunes about it directly, Eric, he said that this goes beyond just Michael Flynn. And because all of this is classified, I'm not sure that we will ever find out exactly to what extent people were being surveilled and who was being surveilled.

What's also interesting about this, too, I should point out, Eric, is the fact that according to chairman Nunes, this didn't come from the agencies. It wasn't informed by the DOJ or the FBI or the NSA. It was an individual or individuals who came forward to him to tell him about this, and that part also has the Democrat very, very upset, as well.

GUILFOYLE: OK. So John, to follow up on what you just mentioned, so the information that Representative Nunes is getting, is that perhaps coming from a whistleblower? Somebody provided that information to him, and that's why the other Republicans, et cetera, were not privy to it?

ROBERTS: If not a whistleblower specifically, at least somebody who thought that he would want to have this information. But it interesting. The reason I was turned around, I was talking to Mara Liasson from NPR, who of course, frequent visitor here on the FOX News Channel, about all of this.

And to connect some of the dots here, the president said last week we expect that we're going to hear something next week about this. Earlier in the week, I was told by a White House official, when I said, "What are you trying to do to get this off the books so you can get out of the hole that's been dug here," they said, "Well, we're working on that."

And then two days later, out comes Devin Nunes with information that was apparently given to him privately by an individual or individuals. So there are some dots here that you can connect in different ways, but you know, do I want to say there was coordination? No, but it is interesting and curious, all the timing of this.

BECKEL: It probably was Breitbart.

GUILFOYLE: Thank you.

BECKEL: Go ahead.

GUTFELD: Regarding this breaking "new-nes," I haven't seen this much improper asking since "Eyes Wide Shut." Ladies and gentlemen, an obscure joke.

Where do you see this going? I have no question, because I don't know what's going on. I don't believe anybody. I don't trust anybody. What is going -- what is going to happen tomorrow, John?

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God. Worse than Bob.

ROBERTS: What is going to happen tomorrow with the health care bill?

GUTFELD: Yes -- no, I'm talking about where is this story going?

ROBERTS: Oh, OK, where is this story going, because there's another big one, the health care bill. That will be tomorrow.

GUTFELD: Yes, that's next block, John.

GUILFOYLE: Breaking Nunes.

ROBERTS: We might not -- we might not hear anything more about this until Friday. That's when Chairman Nunes said that he expected to hear more about it. He said the NSA was cooperating with him.

But where I think this thing is going in the overall, I mean, just when I look at where we began here and what we -- I think it's going nowhere. I think eventually, it will just be one of those things. It's just kind of in geostationary orbit around the earth. It will be up there, but nobody will remember it's up there.

GUTFELD: That's what I thought.

PERINO: All right, John, I'll ask you about tomorrow night's health care bill, just because I'm curious.

ROBERTS: OK.

PERINO: President Trump has really, it seems to me, pulled out all the stops to try to flip as many Republican members as he can from a "no" to a "yes" for tomorrow night's health care vote. Is there anything more that's happening at the White House or that you know about for tomorrow, because I know he had some members there today, trying to get them to say yes?

ROBERTS: Yes. There were some members of the Freedom Caucus who were here, legislative affairs, as you know, Dana, we haven't done this. And you know far more about this than I do. Working the phones, they're burning up the lines between here and Capitol Hill, trying to wrangle as many votes as they can. Folks on the Hill believe that, you know, the arm- twisting will go on right up until they either decide to put this thing to a vote because they've got the votes or they decide to pull it because they don't. We'll see.

PERINO: All right.

BECKEL: All right, coming up, we'll preview tomorrow's big vote on the Obamacare replacement bill. Will there be enough votes for it to pass? No, I don't think so. Speaker Ryan spoke to Dana earlier. Hear what he has to say.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: We are 24 hours away from a crucial vote on Capitol Hill, the first major legislative test for President Trump. Tomorrow, House lawmakers will decide on the bill to replace and repeal Obamacare. It's still not clear whether Republicans have enough support within their own party to get it passed. I interviewed Speaker Paul Ryan just a short while ago, and here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We are in the fourth quarter of the House passing this bill. That's when a lot of negotiations really intensify, near the end of the process. And that's what this is. This is called legislating.

And so there are people who want to get various provisions in the bill, but what's important for us is we have to broker compromises to make sure that we draft legislation that can actually pass.

Members promised that we would repeal and replace this disastrous and collapsing law, and that is what we are intent on doing.

The president has been a fantastic closer. He's been getting votes. This is -- to me it's really encouraging. We've never seen this kind of level of presidential engagement and involvement with our members before. It's very constructive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PERINO: All right, Kimberly. We were talking to John Roberts earlier about I think the impressive politicking for President Trump, it might fall short tomorrow night. What do you think?

GUILFOYLE: You know, I think it's going to be tough. Like you said yesterday, you never want to count them out. I know this is something very important to him. He was tweeting about it first thing this morning. So they're working it behind the scenes, but it's been an incredibly busy news day. So there's been probably a little bit of distraction going on, given the developments not only in London but, of course, about the, you know, Nunes conference and the information we got out of that and with Schiff.

I think it's still possible. I think it's going to be tough given the reports that we've been accumulating over the day in terms of people saying that they will not vote for it. So maybe some behind-the-scenes...

PERINO: Bob, we know that today at least two members who had said no, after talking with President Trump, they changed their minds to a yes. What do you think might happen?

BECKEL: Well, I mean, if you believe the Freedom Caucus and what they say, that 25 are of them going to vote against it, which means that you're doing to -- it's going to go down. But I don't think it's going to go down. I was talking to Eric before the show. He's exactly right. They won't let this vote go down. They'll pull it off the floor.

PERINO: Pull it?

BECKEL: And then they'll try to negotiate again. But no matter how you look at it, first of all, it should go down, but it probably will not see the light of day for a long time if they pull it down.

PERINO: So Eric, if it was going to fail, why wouldn't, if you were President Trump, why wouldn't you want it to fail and then you could blame that small cohort of members and try to move on?

BOLLING: I don't know. I think, again, talking to Bob before the show, I -- so there's a chance it could actually pass. The Freedom Caucus came out, and they said 25. The number is 28 who said they weren't in favor of it. And remember, they vote as a proxy.

I don't know. I guess there's a chance it passes, but this is -- personally, I think it's the worst thing that could happen to Donald Trump's reelection campaign. Not -- if it does pass because the bill as it stands right now will increase the costs -- the costs of health insurance to average Americans, not just the costs of the insurance but the deductibles. The total out-of-pocket costs on an annual basis, most middle to lower-class Americans -- middle to lower class -- will have an increase in total out-of-pocket costs. This will kill him in 2020.

So I would like to see a strategy -- and I don't think he's going to do it -- but I'd like to see a strategy where he hangs it on Paul Ryan and says, "Hey, you promised to deliver a better bill. I don't like it. I'd like to walk away from it." I think they may end up...

PERINO: You don't think that's hard to do after he's been so...?

BOLLING: Of course it is. Of course it is. And they may twist some arms, and they may delay it and take some more time to twist some more arms and get it passed. But this is not -- you know, when the -- Greg hates this "when the rubber meets the road," a year or two down the road.

PERINO: OK. You're allowed to say it.

GUILFOYLE: Getting more -- than you expected.

BOLLING: Honest, the Heritage Foundation, Cato says don't do it. Medical practitioners say don't. I just don't like it.

GUILFOYLE: You have people flipping.

PERINO: There is one Democrat, apparently, Greg, who is going to be absent tomorrow. So that's making it, like, just slightly easier for Republicans.

GUTFELD: Well, that's good.

You know, government programs -- I always go back to kind of like the bigger, sadder picture. Government programs have this way of existing forever, independent of quality or results. They just don't die. So the best you can do is somehow improve upon it.

And all government programs, all -- the only thing you can do is limit their impact. That's all you can do, and if that -- if they can just limit it a little bit. Or -- that's good. It's like -- it's like you try to keep the zombie chained to a tree. That's a government program. The Democrats create the zombie...

GUILFOYLE: I like that.

GUTFELD: ... and the Republicans got to chain that zombie to a tree. And tomorrow is about chaining that zombie to a tree.

GUILFOYLE: They can, like, chew their own arm off.

GUTFELD: Well, it's "Shaun of the Dead." They kept it -- he kept it in a shed and played videos.

PERINO: You put it in a straitjacket. Then you pass another bill.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: All right final thoughts from us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: A lot of breaking news this hour to digest. So some final thoughts on it all now. I begin with Greg.

GUTFELD: I just want to talk about the terror attack. You know, there was a police officer killed. Police officers are the first people there. And against the backdrop the past four years of hyper criticism of law enforcement, remember that these are the people that bear the brunt of hell when stuff like this happens. And imagine if you will, leftists, a day without police, what that would be like.

GUILFOYLE: Unbelievable. Dana, your thoughts.

PERINO: Well, also on the terrorism, I do think that it's a good reminder, when one of our allies is attacked, that this is not a fight we chose. This is a fight that we can choose to win.

And in the next six weeks or so there will be a couple meetings that will be very important as President Trump meets with NATO allies to try to talk about all the problems in the world, but including terror. And also the big-budget fights, where President Trump has asked for more money from the Pentagon. It is something that I think will probably pass but it should be -- we should all be aware that we need more resources in order to continue to fight this. It's not going away.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, second that.

BOLLING: Very quickly, the health care debate is so important because No. 1, it's health care. Difficult thing to tackle, as evidence by Clinton not being able to do it. Trump is having a tough time with it, but it needs to be fixed.

Also, it also has to be fixed so we can get the tax reform. That's the big one that we need to be getting to. So let's, I don't know, figure out a way to get the tax reform. Hurry, please.

BECKEL: OK, slight break in this. President Trump missed all this, went to Mar-a-Lago to play more golf. Costs half a million dollars. By projecting out four years, the cost of you guys paying -- as taxpayers -- paying for Donald Trump to go to Mar-a-Lago is half a billion dollars.

GUILFOYLE: All right. And more thoughts just on the London terror attack, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families. We hope that they find who's responsible in terms of which group.

Set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "The Five." We're going to see you right back here tomorrow. "Special Report" is next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.