This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 23, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City. And this is "The Five."
High drama in our nation's capital, a vote was expected tonight in the House on the GOP bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, but it's not happening now, until perhaps tomorrow or later. Many conservative Republicans are withholding support, leaving their party short of the votes needed to pass it. Republicans are scheduled to meet behind closed doors at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. The president still working hard to say to strike a deal. Let's go to chief White House correspondent John Roberts with the latest. John.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Dana, good afternoon. The White House is now expecting that a vote will happen in the House tomorrow, but I hasten to remind you they were expecting the vote was going to happen today. The president will be meeting in just a few minutes' time with members of what's called the Tuesday Group. It is a group of about 50 moderate House Republicans trying to bring them onboard because as the president makes changes to satisfy the conservatives, the moderates are now beginning to drift. So it's a very fine line he's walking. Just a little while ago, he had a group of truckers and trucking CEOs over the White House, with them in the south lawn. The president was sitting down to talk healthcare with them just as he got the news. At that point, the president thought there was in fact going to be a vote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today, the House is voting to repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare. We will see what happens. It's going to be a close vote. After we repeal and replace Obamacare -- by the way, it is close not because Obamacare is good. It is close because of politics. Everybody knows it's no good. It's only politics because we have a great bill. And I think we have a very good chance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: And it was just moments after that the president was informed by a member of the press pool that the vote indeed had been delayed from tonight, and postponed maybe until tomorrow, maybe until Monday. The one group that the president has got to win really over here and there you see they're walking across West Executive Drive is the Freedom Caucus, the 30 or so conservative Republicans on the House who are saying that they don't like the bill because it still contains the regulatory framework of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. They want the president to rip that out, but if he does that, then there is the potential he's going to start to alienate some of the moderates that he has got over the White House. At any rate, Mark Meadows, who is the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, says even though he said last night on Hannity that it looked like they had the framework of a deal, he's not there yet. Listen to what he said in the House just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK MEADOWS, FREEDOM CAUCUS CHAIRMAN: This artificial deadline that we have at this particular point of a vote tonight actually is something that we imposed on ourselves. I am optimistic that we can find common ground with at least 51 or 52 senators. I am still a no at this time. I am desperately trying to get to yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Still a no at this point, but trying to get to yes, Dana. It is unclear what the president is going to have to give him to get him and the rest of the Freedom Caucus members to yes. Again, the more he gives the conservatives, the more he stands to alienate the moderates, and the more he may run up against the Byrd rule in the Senate, which limits the changes that you can make in the reconciliation bill. This is really kind of getting down in the weeds, but they think they've got a formula to do that at this point. They are going to suggest that the regulations that are in the Affordable Care Act that are now in the new American Healthcare Act are indelibly tied to the Obamacare subsidies. And if you get rid of the subsidies, as this new bill would do, you've got to get rid of the regulations as well. It is an interesting and clever argument that they are making, the one that I'm sure Democrats are going to oppose all the way to the bank. Dana.
PERINO: All right, John. Thank you so much for teeing all of that up for our discussion. Kimberly, you can't fault the president for not trying. I mean, he has tried to get everybody there, but I think as they try to make it more palatable to the House Freedom Caucus, he ran the risk of losing some moderates. There are a lot of the guys in the House Freedom Caucus are not, so these votes get harder to get. So I think that's why they had to postpone it.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Yeah, it is tricky and there are some trust issues there, where people were worried also, is McConnell going to mess them over if they voted for it, what was going to happen? So I think this is tough. Because like you mentioned yesterday, the president of the United States, you want him to come out of the box strong and be able to get this through. But that's not turning out to be the case despite his best efforts. I think he was also you know relying on Paul Ryan to be able to get this through, which was promised. And so, they fell short. So you have to look at why are they falling short, what was missing that wasn't palatable? And they certainly had enough time to think about it and it would have been great if they could've gotten it through. Maybe it's going to happen tomorrow, but it certainly won't be for lack of effort from President Trump, Vice President Pence, everybody who is picking up the phone and calling.
PERINO: Including the Freedom Caucus there, so I think we're trying to negotiate in good faith. As Mark Meadows was saying I want to get the yes but he felt like he wasn't going to be able to do it.
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: And the reason why they can't get to yes is that because this bill doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare to the average Americans, the middle class, the lower class Americans. And the Freedom Caucus knows it. Here's the problem. I'm going to say a couple things that are probably going to upset some people. Paul Ryan promised to deliver a bill that would pass the House. He promised to deliver Donald Trump healthcare bill that was going to pass the House, and they could send it to the Senate, and get a Trumpcare. He delivered something that wasn't ready. He should have waited, he could have taken his time, or he could have incorporated their Freedom Caucus into the development of the plan, which he didn't. If you remember, Rand Paul knocking on doors saying I want to see the bill. I can't see the bill.
And the reason was it was done behind closed doors. My problem is it sounds a lot like what we went through in 2009 and 2010 with the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker kickback. By the way, day one, this bill came out. It happened to be outnumbered. They said this is a healthcare bill. We need someone to talk about healthcare. So I went on and I read it. Within minutes, this is dead on arrival because of that reason, because there was no demonstrable lowering of the cost of healthcare to average Americans. It's dead on arrival.
Now, I'm going to say the part that's going to probably tick off a lot of people. This is a win for Donald Trump. It may look like a loss and the Democrats are going to paint it out like a loss, but it's the changing of the guard. We're talking about this for a better part of two years now. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell promised a healthcare bill that was going to pass and get through, and it didn't and it's not. So what it looks like to me is Trump promised changed. He is getting change. The establishment old- school Republicans in D.C. have to relinquish the control, go back to the drawing board, get something more conservative, and bring it to the American people.
PERINO: Relinquish control, what would that look like?
BOLLING: Don't demand that this is a bill the American people are going to like and end up having two major voting groups for Donald Trump having a massive increase in healthcare costs and expect them A to eat it, and B, to want to reelect Donald Trump in 2020.
PERINO: Bob, do you think they could've crafted a bill that would pass the House and also meet the president's request, was that the people who wanted health insurance could get health insurance, the universal access but with competition?
BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: No, I don't think they could. I think that's really the problem. They can talk all they want, but there's a fundamental divide between the Freedom Caucus on the rest of the Republicans. And I don't think there's a way to put it together. You can do cross state lines, you could even do total reform, that's not going to be enough for them. AS Eric points out, the cost of healthcare, which Donald Trump promised is going to get lower.
BOLLING: It would reduce the cost if the Freedom Caucus would jump onboard, but you can't do it.
BOLLING: You need a 60-vote Senate majority.
BECKEL: So you have a flawed bill. The other thing is this bill was moved very quickly, very secretively. And they did not include people in it to put it together, including Donald Trump, by the way, who came in at the end and just said OK, fine, Paul Ryan has it.
GUILFOYLE: Promises were made that was going to happen.
BECKEL: The idea that this isn't a loss for Donald Trump, I couldn't disagree more. The fact of the matter is he is the one who signed on this bill, he pushed it. He's had more meetings on it than anything else he said. And he didn't get it through. Now, will they get it through tomorrow? If they do, it's going to be a bill -- I just can't imagine what it's going to be like. And then you get the Senate and the Senate has already got no votes what is in the House bill. And in fact, I think it will be added onto that bill.
PERINO: I thought of your point, Greg. Once you provide an entitlement or a bill that makes people feel like they are getting something that they deserve from the government, it is hard to pull it back.
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: It is true. It is like I said, you push an elephant into a hole, you can't get the elephant out of the hole.
GUILFOYLE: You have tried?
GUTFELD: I am more interested in what happened to Kevin Sorbo, frankly.
PERINO: Yeah, I don't understand that part.
BOLLING: And this bill literally came down at around 10 in the morning and they said look, we want you to go hardcore healthcare during the hour.
BOLLING: They literally ran down the hallway.
GUTFELD: I saw him in Town Square. He was drunk.
BOLLING: Great guy.
BOLLING: Anyway, I don't know if it's good or bad that they put this off. It's like a final exam when you find out they put it off the day and you go oh, great, more time to study, but you don't study. You watched 12 episodes of Law and Order.
BOLLING: And you prolong the agony, the test doesn't get any easier. I think they should have the vote, get it over with. The one thing I have to say.
GUILFOYLE: You have to eat a lot of Otter Pops.
GUTFELD: Exactly. Well, you ate the Otter Pops. I ate something else.
GUILFOYLE: We work together.
GUTFELD: It shows you the difference between right and left. The left constantly says how they are poor transparency, but the right is actually is about as transparent as you can get. I mean, they had this fight. It is like an open kitchen, where you are allowed to see the sausage being made. That's what you saw in the last three weeks with the Obamacare repeal and replace. But the Democrats, they prefer a backroom kitchen where they butcher a horse and they call it a chicken.
BECKEL: They put this thing together, about five of them in a backroom.
GUTFELD: You know, Bob, that's so funny, because at least we knew what was in this bill.
GUTFELD: I can explain the three steps. Before it was Obamacare, that was done in the dead of night. No one even read it.
BOLLING: That was after they released the bill was. I remember Rand Paul walking down the halls of the House saying I want to read the bill that is supposed to be the next Obamacare, that's going to be the Trumpcare replacing Obamacare. It was under lock and key.
GUILFOYLE: It shouldn't have come to this to begin with. This is the problem.
BOLLING: The wheeling and dealing going on right now reminds me a lot of what went on in 2009.
GUTFELD: He is a dealmaker. That was the whole point of Trump.
BOLLING: The bill was going to have to sit for 72 hours for all members on both sides to read it and understand it before they voted on it. Now, we are trying to say maybe tomorrow. I don't know.
GUTFELD: That's the point. I find this funny. It's not his fault. It's never his fault, right.
BOLLING: No, no, no. Make no mistake, this is on Paul Ryan, not on Donald Trump. Paul Ryan promised a bill that was going to be good enough to pass the House. And he presented something that can't get through the House. The reason why Paul Ryan canceled the 3:30 press conference today, he knew he didn't have the votes. And that is Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump.
GUTFELD: So the dealmaker didn't get the deal, but it's not his fault.
BOLLING: Not yet.
BOLLING: Give it time, in the way that they're talking about, John Roberts alluded to it. You have Vice President Pence, oversee the process where you wipe out that rule, where you need 60 votes for the across state lines.
BOLLING: Once you get rid of that, bring it to the front of the deal. And you get the Freedom Caucus.
GUTFELD: I think Kevin Sorbo would disagree with you, Eric.
PERINO: And what if you lose a bunch of moderates? All right, new developments on the report from Congressman's Nunes, communications from the Trump team may have been incidentally collected by U.S. intelligence. What he said today next.
BOLLING: Today, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee addressed the decision to disclose information about incidental interception of Trump team communications without telling his colleagues first. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEVIN NUNES, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I know they are concerned and I understand that. I mean, that's why I thought it was important yesterday for me to talk to all of you to say that I was going to go let the president know this, before I went over there.
It's a judgment call on my part. At the end of the day, you know, sometimes you make the right decision, sometimes you make the wrong one, but you've got to stick by the decisions you make.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: All right. Representative Nunes maintains there was some kind of incidental collection by U.S. intelligence and says more information will come out hopefully by tomorrow. He privately apologized to his Democratic colleagues today for leaving them in the dark a bit, but that may not be enough for some of them. Here is a Ranking Committee Member Adam Schiff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM SCHIFF, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: We need to do a real investigation of this and we need to do it credibly. We can't have our chair acting as a surrogate for the administration. He has to either have the surrogate role or the chairman role, but he can't do both.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLLING: And, KG, I guess he is saying in the interest of transparency, as Greg points out, he wanted to get the information out there. And I guess he feels -- Schiff feels that Nunes should have notified the rest of the committee prior to going public.
GUILFOYLE: Right. It wasn't the right protocol that was followed. He should've let them know before he went to the public. But then I guess he apologized and said perhaps he should have handled it differently. Nevertheless, that does not impact, affect the content of the information that he was conveying. Now, we have to get to the bottom of that and see what other evidence materializes pursuant to this investigation.
BOLLING: It feels, and he alluded to -- I'm sorry, Nunes alluded that there's more coming. It feels like this is just the beginning of the first trickle of maybe the flow of information coming.
GUTFELD: You know, the incidental collection, that is not the story. It's what happened afterwards with the information. So it's like here's a simple analogy, let's say you are in line at confession, and your neighbor is confessing in front of you and you hear bits and pieces about an act with a gardener may be. It's not your fault you overheard it. It is incidental collection of information. If you broadcast it to your mother's bridge club later, that is the sin. And I think that's what we are talking about here. It's not about the collection. That happens to everybody. It is what happens, the dissemination afterwards. I think that's what you have to focus on, right?
PERINO: Well, that -- yeah, I think but more information means that both of these stories are going to be fueled. And so, the underlying questions about collusion and you've got the alleged collusion with Manafort and former people close to Trump on the campaign and running the campaign, and what they're doing. And then you have the leaking of the names that were unmasked in the report, just one or maybe there were others. I do think that Nunes apologizing to his colleagues was the right thing to do. It really sullied the investigative process that if they want to keep this on the Hill, which I think they should, if you support President Trump, you should want this to not go to a special prosecutor. They should figure out a way to work professionally with each other like the intelligence committee always should. Just keep it aboveboard. I don't think anyone has anything to worry about in terms of getting in trouble if you're constantly trying to help prove them right on this wiretapping or surveillance issue, you're actually going to get eventually to the underlying issue. It's why you went to confession in the first place.
GUTFELD: You don't want to know.
GUILFOYLE: You would be there all week.
BOLLING: Don't you agree there is a lot more there-there coming out of the story?
BECKEL: I think there is a lot more of there-there about the Russian connection, sure, but I think.
BOLLING: I am actually talking about the legal.
BOLLING: . or less than legal surveillance.
BECKEL: Let's get back to what Schiff said about Nunes. I mean, you can't be a surrogate for the White House and chairman of the intelligence committee. This is unprecedented. And I can't likely imagine how the public would take any finding from a Nunes-led committee that they would consider to be accurate, fair, and non-Trump. It's got to have a special prosecutor. There's a lot here, and why not get it off the Hill, put it in the hands of a special prosecutor. Why? Because Trump and his people are afraid they're going to find out the Russians and the Trump team colluded on this election.
BOLLING: Do they need a special prosecutor? I would say they can handle it on their own.
GUILFOYLE: I think they can totally handle in on their own and they just need to push forward in a professional way and maintain the ethics and integrity of the investigation, and get to the bottom of it. I mean, the American people deserve to know exactly what happened. There is something interesting in what Nunes reported saying that the surveillance did not involve the ongoing FBI inquiry into Russia's alleged involvement, so therefore, if they were capturing stuff, and it didn't have intelligence value, the identity should remain secret. And the information should be discarded in this incidental collection.
BOLLING: Which was?
BECKEL: What Nunes did? I mean, he is getting attacked from the left and right.
BOLLING: Who leaked Michael Flynn's name?
BECKEL: Who leaked it?
BOLLING: Why don't we have a special investigator find out?
BECKEL: Why don't we have a special prosecutor get it out of the hands of these right wing nuts?
BOLLING: You don't want a special prosecutor when you have targeted one thing.
BOLLING: His name was illegally leaked.
BECKEL: Because Flynn was doing illegal things.
GUILFOYLE: No, Bob.
BOLLING: Again, that is the difference what Greg pointed out. It's not the act. It's the act of the leaking.
BECKEL: How do we know? Flynn was on the phone all the time. He probably got picked up.
BECKEL: We know who did it.
GUTFELD: Where was Kevin Sorbo in all this?
GUILFOYLE: Maybe he can call in.
BOLLING: On that note, Sean Hannity interviews House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes tonight at 10:00 p.m. You don't want to miss that.
But ahead, brand-new developments on the terror attack in London. We now know much more about the Jihadi who went on a rampage yesterday. Details of that when The Five returns.
BECKEL: Welcome back to The Five. We turn to yesterday's devastating terror attack in London, we now know the identity of the man who killed four people and he himself was also killed. The death toll just rose, more than two dozen injured. His name is Khalid Masood, a 51-year-old Brit with a long history of violence. We also learned today one of the victims who were killed was an American. His wife was also injured. More now from our chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge. Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Bob. In the last 15 minutes, confirmation that a fourth civilian was killed in that attack. As we learn more about the suspect, 52-year-old Khalid Masood was known to police with his criminal record and history of extremist views, but British authorities say there was no intelligence tying him to an imminent plot. Hallmarks of what an analyst call a marauding attack, that's when an individual who is self-radicalized acts alone and turns every day items into weapons. These plots are among the hardest to disrupt and the British to quickly neutralize the suspect and limit the loss of life.
The British did not go public with the suspect's name until this afternoon. But a former army intelligence officer telling Fox it's likely part of an investigative strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW PEEK, FORMER U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: I totally understood the British government's decision not to release the name of the terrorist because they wanted to arrest the rest of its network before they splashed the name everywhere in the network knew enough to flee. I think that's what you saw with the overnight rate in Birmingham as they exploited some of the intelligence they received from the attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: Kurt Cochran from Utah is among the dead, and his wife, Melissa, seriously injured, the couple celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary when they were mowed down by the SUV on Westminster Bridge. This claim of responsibility today comes from a news service, this is the ISIS media outlet. They called the 52-year-old a soldier of the Islamic State. The tweet offers no direct evidence Masood was recruited or trained by ISIS. Bob.
BECKEL: Thank you, Catherine.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
BECKEL: Let me ask you, Eric. Yesterday, there was sort of left the impression this was a madman, who maybe had ties to ISIS, but was acting alone. And overnight, they arrest a network of people which means this was probably planned out well in advance.
BOLLING: It may or may not have been planned out, but the point is once again, it's another ISIS-inspired attack. Whether he was working with ISIS or he was homegrown jihadi that decided he wanted to fight for the cause.
GUILFOYLE: They claimed the attack, though.
BOLLING: They did. I know they did...
BOLLING: ... but -- but they do that a lot. I mean, it's perfect for them: they can create more fear and terror within London.
But I just have to -- I hope it's not too early to do this. While we mourn these victims, again, this was a man who took his car and a knife and ended up killing four innocent victims, no gun involved at all. So when you see him here, and you have the left coming out, outraged about gun violence, it doesn't really matter. It's not -- it's not the gun that pulls the trigger. It's the human being that does it. It's not the terrorist -- I mean, it's not the car or the knife that kills people; it's the terrorist that does it, as in London.
BECKEL: Let me ask you a question, Dana. They had -- there was indication that the British knew about this guy. They had followed him for a while. Then they let him go. It seems to me this happened last year, where they had some somebody they were following, and they decided to let it go. Is this a failure of the intelligence community, or is it just that we can't follow everybody?
PERINO: Well, I do think that there's a pattern. Kimberly could correct me if I'm wrong, but that almost all these terrorist attacks, either here in America or overseas, they've had some brush with the FBI or intelligence community that have, like, looked at them; but there's nothing that they've done where you could detain them. And I imagine that the people that they arrested were probably within that initial contact that he had with law enforcement, the intelligence community. But that's the network that they had. And maybe those people are innocent, but I would assume that they are there.
The thing is, in our western civilization, you can't detain people because you think they might do something bad in the future. You have to wait until they do something bad. And in this case, what ISIS has inspired is for people to do these types of attacks, especially this mowing down using vehicles. Very hard to guard against. And you can see why, as a terrorist tactic, it is effective if we let it get to us.
BECKEL: Can't you -- can't you follow these guys, though? I mean, can't you monitor them, but you don't have to necessarily pick them up?
GUILFOYLE: Yes -- well, yes, but -- but again, when you think about the resources, allocation of resources in the intelligence community, we face the same problem here in terms of how many of them can you get after and keep track of; and you can't just preemptively take them in.
So you have the situation here, which -- what you saw was quick work right after, right, because they were kind of aware of the guy. Then you had MI- 5 working with NSA, joint operations, trying to be able to get the information from, like, telegram and other encrypted devices, text messages, taking this guy's life apart. And then they start framing out and bullet-pointing contacts and associates, and they were able to put this together.
And as for using these type of things as weapons, this started out with, you know, al Qaeda and "Inspire" magazine back in the '90s, saying this is the type of thing that you could do. And as far as I'm concerned, there is no lone wolf. People are radicalized in whatever way they can. And ISIS, I think, is correct when they say they have created a digital caliphate where they're able to connect a network and radicalize and reach people all over the place, because even the poorest among people have cell phones to connect the phones.
BECKEL: They told me to tease, but Greg hasn't gotten in. Do you want to say one sentence, Greg?
GUTFELD: Yes, goodbye. No.
GUILFOYLE: Kevin Sorbo.
GUTFELD: Civilization is always going to be at a disadvantage with this. We are always playing catch up. As we harden a soft target, as we plug a hole, terrorists will always find new holes to fill.
And the thing is, a failure to fight terror is a failure in diligence but it's also a failure in imagination. You have to continually think like a terrorist. You have to think about how do you make something deadly? For example, a box cutter plus a plane created a missile. That never happened before.
The one thing I want to bring up that, you know, I fear that we're suffering from what I call a vigil dysmorphic disorder, and it's this belief that lighting candles and making heart-shaped symbols with your hands is somehow an effective action against evil. And while it's a lovely sentiment to show support for the people who are suffering, you cannot stop there.
You cannot say we go out and we march and we sit down, and we light a candle and that's where it ends. And then we start talking about compassion and we start talking about love and we start talking about it. Then we get to Islamophobia. And we totally skip the point I just mentioned, which is hardening soft targets and diligence. We skip that, because we're too busy preaching love and kisses.
GUILFOYLE: I'm with that.
BECKEL: OK. Next, Bill O'Reilly tears apart...
GUTFELD: What's that?
PERINO: An upside-down heart.
GUILFOYLE: That's not even a heart.
BECKEL: It's supposed to be a heart. Is that not a heart?
Anyway, all right, just keep going. Bill O'Reilly tears apart the mainstream media for ignoring the Rockville, Maryland, rape story because the suspects are illegal immigrants. We'll see that ahead.
GUILFOYLE: Welcome back. Two illegal immigrants were arrested last week for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl inside a school in Rockville, Maryland. It is a huge story that all media outlets should be covering, but you haven't seen it on the big three network newscasts: ABC, CBS, and NBC.
They did devote tons of coverage to the fake report by "Rolling Stone" in 2014 that members of a fraternity gang-raped a female student at UVA. Bill O'Reilly put the mainstream media on blast for their shameful blackout of this important story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLI)
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: That is beyond anything I have ever seen in my 40 years plus of journalism. A story of that magnitude ignored by the national media.
We all know why. Illegal immigration is a political issue. President Trump has made the apprehension of undocumented criminals a top priority.
We have a president who vows to stop the illegal alien criminal madness. But we have a media that openly opposes that, allowing the sanctuary movement to pretty much run wild.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUILFOYLE: OK, Eric, so there's been a lot of discussion about this. And you've seen, obviously, this story covered on FOX News, as it should be. And you can hearken back to the time when the UVA story, of the rape that didn't occur, was given widespread attention all across the mainstream media. Not this important story.
BOLLING: Yes, and O'Reilly -- O'Reilly was fired up last night. He was really ticked off. And he have a couple of points. We may have made these points as well; but why is a 17 and 18-year-old mixed in with a freshman, 14-year-old girl? Why does that happen? That was a clear failure. This is me now. This is a clear failure by the school board and the principal. I mean, there's no way that should happen. It can't happen. They're going to have to fix that. And it may be because they're so P.C., politically correct, fear of looking like they're being, I don't know, less than...
GUILFOYLE: Discriminatory or...?
BOLLING: Yes, that's mine. But the point is, you know, illegals, and I'll say again, and we have this argument on this show quite a bit. Illegals commit crime, violent crime -- not the crime of coming over here illegally -- they commit violent crime, after they're caught, at a far higher rate than the national population. Somewhere around four times the number that they actually represent.
GUILFOYLE: All right. Dana.
PERINO: You want to...
GUTFELD: I don't think that's true. I looked it up. I did.
BOLLING: Unless the brain room (ph) was wrong. So the high rate...
GUTFELD: Legal or illegal, not linked to crime spikes. From 1990 to 2013, the illegal population tripled, but crime declined 48 percent. Murder rate...
BOLLING: On the federal level.
GUTFELD: That's what I'm doing. I'm doing national level violent crime.
BOLLING: I will send you the info.
GUTFELD: I got mine from -- not from the FOX News brain room. I got it from an independent source. But maybe -- maybe the brain room has a different source than I do.
BOLLING: They do.
GUTFELD: One rape, the UVA rape, was false, but it fit into a liberal feminist narrative.
GUTFELD: Which is why it was widely reported and accepted. Plus, you have the argument that, whether or not it's false, it doesn't matter, because it's true somewhere else. That's the article they always use.
And to your point of why it happened, romantic progressive ideals won over common sense, so they had -- they were allowed to take two 18-year-olds mixed in with young girls, because they said they couldn't speak English, so they couldn't go into a higher grade. So they though, "Let's help them," when in fact, without seeing with their common sense that this was a bad idea.
GUILFOYLE: Yes, but I mean, there's a huge problem there, Dana, in terms of why are they entitled, then, you know, to get that education at the risk of public safety and at the expense, personal safety, of young, you know, kids.
PERINO: Might be a law that has to be revisited.
PERINO: Because in 1982, the Supreme Court decided, based on a resource issue that -- it wasn't about public safety; it was about resources and expenditures -- in that case, in 1982, the Supreme Court said there would be more harm if you do not educate them. So that's why these school districts do that.
I don't think it's appropriate to put 18-year-olds in with freshman, but I also imagine from a resource standpoint, that school is like, "Well, where else are we going to put them, because they have to be in remedial English class?"
There's all sorts of problems here.
I would say that, because of the publicity on sanctuary cities and the concerns, also about, when you look at President Trump and the push he has made, the movement is actually -- the movement is against sanctuary. So the governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, has said that, if the supreme -- if the state of Maryland sends him a bill about sanctuary, making it a sanctuary state, he would veto it. And you saw people, mayors in Florida saying, "We're not going to do this sanctuary thing anymore."
So there is actually a movement against sanctuary, which will probably grow.
GUILFOYLE: Yes, well, I'm against sanctuary schools. I mean if you're coming into this country illegally and you shouldn't be here and they should have been deported, that's where they go. Go back to school wherever you came from and don't make it an obligation, a taxpayer expense and a public safety expense.
BECKEL: The -- so that's the county I live in, Montgomery County, probably the most liberal county in the country. It's not surprising to me that they downplayed this. It got very little local coverage, I might add, in "The Washington Post" and the local newspapers. It should have gotten coverage. It should be covered by the mainstream media, as you call it. It should be covered by a lot of people, because rape is rape, and it is -- whether it's done by people who are citizens of this country or not, it is a plague on our country; and it should be reported.
GUILFOYLE: OK, great.
Ahead, New York City's far-left mayor has just ordered schools to block immigration enforcement officials from entering. Bill de Blasio's very bad decision next.
GUTFELD: In a press conference on Tuesday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his deputies will block ICE agents from entering public schools, even though no one said they were going there in the first place.
So how will he block these nonexistent invaders? It's a good question. He brags about denying entry unless there's a warrant, which is how things work, you dumbass.
Yes, it's an official medical diagnosis: De Blasio is a dumbass, dumber than six pounds of dead flounder. No offense to dead fish.
Oh, the mayor, he acts the hero, protecting the city from make-believe threats as he fails to protect us from real threats like criminally stupid mayors. De Blasio isn't just dumb: he's dangerous and he tries to hide it with cheap, grandstanding press conferences.
See, just last week, an insane ex-con ran down a medic in her own ambulance. She left behind five children. The deranged killer had 31 arrests: assault, robbery, weapons charges. But worse: a judge just appointed by the mayor had the chance to hold this maniac but let him go. Free, then, to murder a mom.
So while Mayor McFreak fakes compassion by creating a comic book threat of ICE invaders, his bumbling, incoherent policies turn innocents into sitting ducks for mad men.
Sorry, Lurch. The threat isn't from immigration agents. It's progressive punks who put politics before safety. And so in New York, mad men can roam free and even become mayor.
I don't like this person.
BOLLING: No, come on.
GUTFELD: I don't.
GUILFOYLE: He's really the worst.
GUTFELD: When -- when is somebody at this table going to run for mayor? It's either going to be...
GUILFOYLE: You keep looking at me.
GUTFELD: It's either you or Eric.
GUILFOYLE: You going to pay my bills?
GUTFELD: No, I'm out. It's...
GUTFELD: You would wipe the floor with this mop.
GUILFOYLE: I'd make him cry for his mother so fast. You have no idea. He'd be looking for a safe space, crawling in the corner.
GUTFELD: But how can -- like, this is all -- this is all grandstanding. It's like, "Hey, I'm the heroic guy." But he doesn't protect us.
GUILFOYLE: Well, this is the problem, and you really can see the difference. We've all been in New York now for a while, and you see the difference from when, you know, Bloomberg was mayor. Giuliani to now, I mean, it's just shameful. I literally can't even -- I'm like, wait, am I in the right -- up where I live -- we'll not say -- it's not nice. It's a mess there. We never get any of the snow plowed. All the garbage isn't collected. It's like, OK, I got it. I got the joke, but enough is enough.
Be mature. Do your job. Don't discriminate on people that you think didn't vote for you and earn the job of being mayor. He wants to run for reelection? Well, what exactly has he done? He's not made the place safer.
GUILFOYLE: Got rid of Stop and Frisk. Police department is demoralized.
BECKEL: He did -- he did purposely not plow your neighborhoods, no question about that. He started off in poorer neighborhoods, because poorer neighborhoods before were always plowed last.
GUILFOYLE: Do them all.
BECKEL: But leaving that aside, what is wrong with having to have a warrant to go into school?
GUTFELD: Yes, you should.
BECKEL: You should, right?
GUTFELD: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Definitely. I agree with you on that. You should have a warrant. But the point is, that's standard procedure, so he wasn't saying anything new. It's like we all know that you need a warrant.
PERINO: He was doing it for his own local P.R. purposes.
PERINO: So people in New York are like, "Oh, my gosh, ICE was going to come into our schools and take away children and separate families?" No, nobody said that was going to happen. But having put that out there, then it was like, oh, somebody else has to prove that it's not happening.
PERINO: This happens a lot in our discourse lately, not just on that issue. But also, it helps him nationally with the left. So he's got a big election coming up. He's going to want support. And he probably wants a future in the Democratic Party. Help get him there.
BOLLING: The question is, is there a future in the Democratic Party for him? At what level and where? And does he make way for -- I don't know -- Kimberly against Hillary? I think that would be an amazing -- run for mayor, mayoral.
GUTFELD: Guil versus Hill.
BOLLING: Guil versus Hill.
GUILFOYLE: My gosh. What a thrill.
GUTFELD: ... Bo Dietl.
GUILFOYLE: Yes, Bo. I just said that. Oh, my gosh. An echo, yes.
BECKEL: Did you say that?
BECKEL: I'm sorry. Are you for Bo Dietl?
GUILFOYLE: I love Bo Dietl.
GUTFELD: Let's just all agree that he's the worst mayor that ever walked the planet. OK? And I include John Mayer in that.
GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh.
GUTFELD: "One More Thing" is up next.
PERINO: It's time now for "One More Thing," a very special one with Kimberly.
GUILFOYLE: Well, today is National Puppy Day. Isn't that so amazing? So I found these puppies. No, guess what? They're mine. They're brothers, and they belong to me and to Ronan. And they are should Shih Tzu poodles.
GUTFELD: Stop it. What are they?
GUILFOYLE: Shih Tzu poodles, Shi Poo.
GUTFELD: Shi Poo.
GUILFOYLE: And they are brothers. You see this? They're super cute. So I'm going to show you real quick. This is Mario and this is Luigi.
PERINO: They're so cute.
GUILFOYLE: And you see Mario and Luigi. That's little video made of them in there.
GUTFELD: They're obviously boys.
GUILFOYLE: And one of their best friends. In New York City, Luigi from the East Side -- you'll see him in the end, and he was riding around in a Mercedes-Benz G-wagon. And they really seemed to like it a lot. They're very hipster. They're the Super Mario Brothers. Aren't they adorable?
PERINO: Super cute.
GUILFOYLE: So look, there you go.
PERINO: We'll see if anyone comes.
GUILFOYLE: Not even four months yet. And Ronan loves them...
GUTFELD: Don't touch my unicorn mug.
PERINO: Pass the baton.
GUILFOYLE: That video...
PERINO: Now it's your turn.
BOLLING: They're fabulous.
GUILFOYLE: Aren't they the cutest things you've ever seen?
BOLLING: They are.
PERINO: Wait, don't let them...
BOLLING: So tonight at 8 -- I'm sorry. Don't chew the card. Don't chew the card. Tonight, at 8 p.m., it's a special live edition of "The O'Reilly Factor." Look who I got: Sean Spicer. Now, he had a -- Spicey had a press conference at 1:45; ended at 2:30 today. And guess what? A lot of news happened after 2:30 today, so we'll sit down.
PERINO: Spicer was funny today.
BOLLING: Yes, had some fun.
GUILFOYLE: Look at how well-behaved Mario is.
BOLLING: He had the laugh on Jonathan Carl. Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan.
PERINO: Yes, you're a happy boy.
GUILFOYLE: Look at Mario over there. This is Luigi.
PERINO: Greg, do you want to hold a dog while you do this?
GUTFELD: No thanks. My first podcast is up. It is called "The One." I couldn't resist -- actually, Chris Freed, the comedian, came up with that. And it's -- I got Chris Freed, Laura Pomtieri (ph). And the topic, we talk about Gorsuch, his bladder. And also robots. That's it. Radio.FOXNews.com.
Do I have time to ban a phrase?
GUILFOYLE: Everything's robots.
GUTFELD: I'm going to ban this phrase: "suggests." I hate -- this word now is how you're able to imply a fact without actually being right. I've been noticing this on other networks, saying "suggesting -- evidence suggesting collusion," or "the leaks suggest surveillance." "Suggest" means you don't have the facts.
BOLLING: Or just put a question mark at the end of the comment.
GUTFELD: Yes, "some say..."
PERINO: People say.
GUTFELD: Could it be?
PERINO: I remember somebody at the briefing last night.
OK, I have one. Last night I went to a retirement dinner for Terry Lundgren, who is retiring as the CEO of Macy's. It was a beautiful event. Anna Wintour was there.
GUTFELD: Anna Wintour?
PERINO: Ryan Seacrest, Ralph Lauren. But I have to say, this was the best part, was watching how, what he's planning to do in his after-retirement life. And all dedicated to young people.
And it really made me think. You know you sometimes do that exercise, what would you want people to say in your obituary? I actually think it's better to think what you would want people to say at your retirement party? Because..,
GUTFELD: Same thing.
PERINO: ... it really matters what you do. Your colleagues and the people that you help. It really makes a difference.
Congratulations to him and his lovely wife, Tina. And thanks for inviting me.
GUILFOYLE: Look at the difference this is making for Bob.
PERINO: Go Bob. You need one?
BECKEL: It's a nice dog. Very nice dog.
BOLLING: A service dog.
BECKEL: You know, Pope Francis is known as somebody who relates to children very, very well. And this is what happened to him the other day.
GUILFOYLE: Why didn't you hold him, Greg?
BOLLING: Watch. Watch.
BECKEL: There it is. He had a kid took his cap right off him. He smiled and laughed and put it back on. Good for him.
GUTFELD: Another disappearing cap. Ice cap.
PERINO: There you go.
Well, this is -- these dogs are beautiful, K.G.
GUILFOYLE: Thank you.
PERINO: Congratulations. Maria -- I'm sorry, Mario and Luigi. Thank you.
GUILFOYLE: The Mario Brothers.
PERINO: Helping make our show great.
GUILFOYLE: Ronan wanted to keep them together, so they're brothers. So he said, "Mommy, two."
PERINO: They will never be separate. Set your DVRs so you never miss an episode of "The Five."
GUTFELD: Kevin Sorbo.
PERINO: That's it for us. "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.