Senate showdown over Judge Gorsuch nomination

Reaction and analysis on 'The Five'


This is a rush transcript from "The Five," April 3, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Hello everyone, I'm Kimberly Guilfoyle along with Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Greg Gutfeld. It is 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

New drama on Capitol Hill over President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Well today, the Senate Judiciary Committee easily advanced the nomination for the full senate to vote on later this week. But Democrats also scored a victory. They now have enough votes to filibuster and indicate they will.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch's record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate and has written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, D-VT.: My conscience will not allow me to ratify the majority leader's actions, not last year, not this year. I will not, I cannot support advancing this nomination.

SEN. AL FRANKEN, D-MINN.: In light of Judge Gorsuch's record and in the absence of sufficient answers and honest answers to questions that -- proposed during the hearing, I oppose this nomination.


GUILFOYLE: The GOP has the power to go nuclear to push Gorsuch through but they were steaming mad at Democrats after the vote today.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: If you're filibustering him as a Democrat, that just means you don't accept the fact that President Trump won and this is the end of the qualification standards to be on the Supreme Court. Hamilton is rolling over in his grave.

SEN. MIKE LEE, R-UTAH: Some of our colleagues are determined to just pound the table in order to stop Judge Gorsuch.

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS: What we saw today was the position of the modern Democratic Party as they are opposed to Donald Trump appointing anyone to the Supreme Court.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, R-UTAH: The Democrats have criticized the court. It's pathetic. They're so stupid that they pick somebody of his quality and ability. And it all comes down to the fact that they're still gnashing their teeth over the fact they lost the presidency this last year. This is one of the reasons they had lost.


GUILFOYLE: All right, so strong statements on both sides of the aisle, but will he in fact get nominated, I mean, put through, Dana.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Yes, so Senator McConnell who is the majority leader now has said that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed on Friday. And the statement he just put out a few moments ago was that the Democrats can change their mind and not force this nuclear trigger for them to go to a solid majority for vote like this.

If they chose to, I do think that Chuck Schumer, the new -- he took over for Harry Reid. Harry Reid of course, you know, there's no love lost there between me and the former minority leader, but I thought Chuck Schumer would be different and I thought that he would be able to lead his Democrats in a different way.

I think that he's making them walk a really short plank and that the long term pain for Democrats will be a lasting effect, not just on the Senate but for America. It's a 200-year tradition. Now, maybe the tradition needed to go away. Maybe it is past its time. I don't think that Mitch McConnell wanted to do this but if you heard what Senator Leahy was saying, it's not about Gorsuch as a person, it's about the tactics that McConnell used last year to block Merrick Garland, who was President Obama's appointee.

But it's payback for what? Because Gorsuch is going to be confirmed so, they basically are forcing this now so that they can't use it later if there's another chance for another nominee.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. So, what do you think about the strategy here on behalf of the Democrats?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Failure. Dana is 100 percent right. Look at -- so they will get the Republican, they'll get Gorsuch on the bench. They'll have a conservative on the bench. Think about going forward though, there are two 80 plus year-olds on the bench currently and if you - - and you know, if you have an 8-year Trump presidency, that's a potentially two more Supreme Court nominees.

And all you've done is you said, go ahead Republicans, put who you want on the bench because it's going to be a 50-vote majority, 5i votes or 50 votes will get you your bench nominees going forward. That's a mistake on their part. They didn't play ball on this one. They should have and they could have fought that battle on one of the future ones if there was one but they failed.

Neil Gorsuch had 2,700 decisions. He was moderate on most -- seen as moderate on most social issues, including saying that abortion is the law of the land because of Roe v. Wade. I mean what more does Democrats want? What more do the liberals want? Take that and -- the only -- you heard this over and over again. TransAm Trucking -- Trans Trucking.

This is a decision of little material consequence to the country. Yes, it may be something that the Democrats don't like, but it certainly not a reason to hold up a Neil Gorsuch nomination. It is absolute failure on their part because now they're going to eat it on the next two nominations if it happens under Trump.

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: You know I noticed you didn't have anything to say when the Republicans held up the Supreme Court nominee for a year. But leaving that aside, Gorsuch's problem now is growing among Democrats and it's not just his had 2,700 decision. This is a guy that's never met a regulation he likes and particularly if it's a regulation that somehow or another, a corporation that's always costing them profits.

This guy is pro-corporate and the first, by the way, the first political hack appointment to the Supreme Court without getting 60 votes.

BOLLING: So Bob, would recommend -- would you advise the Democrats to force the nuclear option on Neil Gorsuch? Would you --

BECKEL: I think the Republicans are going to look stupid. If people are going to sit back and say what is it about this guy? I don't know much --

BOLLING: So you think this is good politics what they're planning right now?

BECKEL: I think the fact that Republicans have to go to a nuclear option and break up all these years of tradition is at best --

PERINO: They didn't start it. Reid did.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, but Harry Reid --

BECKEL: Yes, but not to the Supreme Court we didn't.

GUILFOYLE: This is about as good as it gets for the Democrats in terms of somebody who is very -- well-qualified. He's moderate, he's a reasonable person. So now they're going to go ahead and do this but they don't have the public support because 44 percent feel that the Senate should go ahead and confirm him --

BECKEL: Do you think he's moderate just because of Roe v. Wade?

GUILFOYLE: I think that he's moderate based on his judicial record and his rulings and his opinions and his stated answers in front of the committee. Greg.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I've never seen one smart person being lectured by so many idiots in these hearings. It's like watching the opposite of a carnival dunk tank. Usually people are in line throwing balls at a clown. This is the reverse. It's a line of clowns throwing balls at the only sensible person in there.

We have to admit this, the Republicans will support the president's selection. The Democrats will oppose. It's like watching a professional soccer match. We know the score is going to be 0-0, all right. So just get to the direct kicks. Get to the vote.

BECKEL: That's been the case.

GUTFELD: But OK, well, you know what the case is? If you recall your memories of Supreme Court nominations, the worst ones were Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas. I can't remember a time when Republicans went viciously after Democrats. It's always the Democrats that go after the Republicans. It's not a nuclear showdown. It's like when you play tic-tac-toe, it always end in a cat (ph). So just vote it. Screw the stupid theatrics. It's a bunch Kabuki B.S.

BECKEL: It's not -- listen, Greg --

GUTFELD: This guy is so -- This guy is so --

BECKEL: -- bipartisan votes for --

GUTFELD: But Bob, Bob --

BECKEL: -- beginning of this --

GUTFELD: This guy is so bland, wonder bread is for (INAUDIBLE).

BECKEL: How do you know he's that bland? By the way, what makes you think he's so smart?

BOLLING: Do you think -- I mean a filibuster should be reserved for when there's an issue that both sides agree this could be a nominee that maybe isn't right for the bench. Think about Sotomayor and Kagan.

GUILFOYLE: They got through.

BOLLING: They got through -- and I'm telling you, they are as liberal as liberal as long and yet the Republicans found it in their power to get the 60-vote threshold for both of those too. I think Neil Gorsuch is far less conservative than Sotomayor and Kagan are liberal, and they got through.

BECKEL: There was a decision by the Supreme Court of the last century, I mean the Chevron decision, which said that the Congress could not do regulations. They could pass laws but you had to leave it up to the executives to have regulations. That's been essentially accepted by all sides since then, except Gorsuch said in one of his opinions, I'd like to do away with --

PERINO: No, I think that he said it was worth looking at again and I think he's right, and I think President Obama actually when he writes his memoirs, might agree partly because if you look at the regulations that they put forward, including the Clean Power Act, because Congress didn't spell out of what was legal and what was not, then EPA went forward and they said, well, this is what we're going to do and they tried to use that Supreme Court ruling on the Chevron deference. But guess what happened? It got tied up in the court and now it can't move anywhere because --

BECKEL: You don't want Congress to make every regulation --

PERINO: No, but I think that they need to have a little bit more skin in the game and not just defer everything to the agencies.

GUTFELD: By the way, when Barack Obama writes his memoirs, it's actually going to be Bill Ayers writing it.

GUILFOYLE: Thanks for the heads up.

PERINO: Ghost writer.

GUTFELD: This is like the world's worst dinner theater and I admire Bob for putting up a fight on this because it is such a predictable political display on both sides. It's like they are acting at a bad movie and it's like an action movie in which you know that dialogue is only putting off the fight scene. Just get to the fight scene. We don't need any more dialogue. We didn't even need the hearings. Put the guy on "Judge Judy." Let him host -- guest host "Judge Judy" for two weeks and that is more entertaining than this crap.

BOLLING: But it's almost political malpractice though by doing this. This is your fight. No, you should save the fight for the next Supreme Court nominee.

GUILFOYLE: That's the problem.

BECKEL: You didn't see --

PERINO: That's why I think that humor is --

BECKEL: -- is holding a guy up for a year?

BOLLING: No. They didn't have the vote.

PERINO: No, actually I think that was the most courageous and bold political move.

BECKEL: Oh, come on.

GUTFELD: You would have done it.

PERINO: Think of --

BECKEL: Courageous and bold --

PERINO: You would have done the same thing.

BECKEL: -- you put up Mitch McConnell? What?

PERINO: Absolutely. See, and that's the thing, is that the Democrats continue to underestimate Mitch McConnell. His book was even called "The Long Game" and he's playing that. So, he went through a lot of terrible press for about four months on the Garland thing and at the end, basically, for voters at the very end who were like, I don't know if I can vote for Trump, should I vote for Trump, but the Supreme Court is so important and they voted for Trump.


BECKEL: And you put Mitch McConnell's name on anything that's been important in this country and he (INAUDIBLE) anything that he's done --

PERINO: Absolutely.

GUTFELD: He truly is the tortoise in "Tortoise and the Hare." He even looks like the tortoise, but he's right. He always wins.

PERINO: He always wins.

BOLLING: Yes, but think about that. What you've done, you've handed the Republicans a reason to go 50-vote majority for the next Supreme Court nominees. They didn't have to do that.

GUILFOYLE: Right. Bob, it's a bad political move.

BECKEL: It's going to happen anyway. That's going to happen anyway.


BECKEL: -- they are going to go to the nuclear option. You know that and I know that. That's how partisan it's gotten and so let's just accept the fact that 60 is done. The Republicans have decided to do that at the Supreme Court level and the founders ought to be turning over in their graves --

BOLLING: Were the founders twirling when Harry Reid in '13 destroyed the filibuster for everything but that Supreme Court?

BECKEL: Probably didn't like it, yes.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, but still we haven't heard one, you know, reasonable, (INAUDIBLE) fact --

PERINO: Like why he shouldn't be.

GUILFOYLE: -- why he shouldn't be. Yes, because --

BECKEL: Chevron. I told you. He's --

GUILFOYLE: Be reasonable --

PERINO: That's one standard in law school.

BOLLING: TransAm Trucking and Chevron.

PERINO: And ultimate TransAm Trucking, Gorsuch said he didn't like the ruling. He didn't like what he had to do but he adhered to the law.

BECKEL: He has a way of writing a decision and saying by the way I wish I didn't have to do this, blah, blah, blah. But that he's weak man.

GUTFELD: Oh, no, no. You're not supposed to let people know how you're going to judge. That's why it's pointless.


BECKEL: Well, thank you, Greg.

GUTFELD: Welcome.

GUILFOYLE: Ahead, Bob, pay attention. Breaking explosive news today on who ordered the unmasking of the names of Trump's transition officials from intelligence reports. A top aide from the Obama administration is named, next.


PERINO: An update today on the incidental collection controversy. Several sources have told Fox News that it was president Obama's former national security advisor Susan Rice who requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials from intelligence reports. Just a week and a half ago, Rice denied knowledge of the unmasking.


SUSAN RICE, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection.


PERINO: The Trump White House will not confirm or deny the Rice allegations.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE PRESS SECRETARY: I will say that we have continued to say that I think there is a troubling direction that some of this is going in, but we're going to let this review go on before we jump to a conclusion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the White House believe Susan Rice may have done anything illegal?

SPICER: I'm not going to start going down that road but I do think that when you see the developments that we've seen in terms of the public on the record comments that Dr. Farkas -- Evelyn Farkas, who was the deputy assistant secretary for defense for Russian affairs said very publicly that this was part of an attempt of the Obama administration to spread classified information.


PERINO: Adam Housely has been following the story very closely for days and he joins us live from Los Angeles. Adam, can you catch us up for people that maybe missed it over the weekend. What did you find out?

ADAM HOUSELY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, we kind of linked this last week, myself and (INAUDIBLE) investigative reporter, Malia Zimmerman, and started looking into this last week when we were getting comments from some of our sources, hey, you need to look into this. And it really developed.

We broke the story on Friday about what we had found and it developed over the weekend. A couple online individual actually said it was Susan Rice first. We all knew where this information was going so basically what we're told is this information that was collected incidentally, which I guess I'm told happens all the time obviously in that community. But those American names are generally redacted. You don't see the name.

So for example, if I was to call a foreign country, if it was not national security related or something serious, it would say American citizen number one. These people started noticing if the name was connected to Donald Trump, the name would actually show up in a report.

And all that information was then disseminated to the NSC, people at the DOD, James Clapper, John Brennan, basically all the people at the top, including former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, and that obviously put some concern out for some of our sources who've been talking to us, Dana.

PERINO: All right, were going to take it around the table, Adam, if you don't mind. Greg, we'll start with you.

GUTFELD: Adam, how are you doing? Good to see you. I have a question about this whole idea of reverse monitoring where you say, look, I'm not spying on you. I am spying on the foreigner with you. It seems like it's almost like you turn the foreigner into an unknowing wing man. It's like your free pass to go pick up the other person. Is that some kind of -- is that being used in a way as a loophole to maybe monitor other U.S. citizens?

HOUSELY: I'm told yes. In fact, one of the sources yesterday spent about eight minutes by my watch explaining how that all works, and I'm not going to take your time because I wouldn't do it right, but it's basically a gray area. It's basically a roundabout way, and the concern really when it comes to crime potentially, again, we have to look into this a lot more, is the leaking and who did that.

But obviously just the way the names were redacted and the number we're told is much more than they've ever seen in something like this, that's where the concern came in because for them, in their opinion, it was unprecedented.

PERINO: All right, well keep going, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, what do you expect to uncover, kind of next steps? Where is this going in terms of the investigation because several of these individuals, if they're involved in this, could be subjected to some kind of criminal prosecution or liability?

HOUSELY: I mean, we're obviously following every lead we can, Kimberly. If you might imagine we get a lot of tips on the stuff now as we continue to get into it. We have to wade through those and find out which ones, you know, you could actually follow and which ones really don't make any sense.

You know, this could go a lot of different ways, really. I know it's concerning for a lot of Americans. I know that the individuals we spoke to are concerned about, you know, they don't want their methods getting out basically. They want to make sure it's clear that what the community does does and their opinion helped the U.S. and security. And they're concerned at how this all went.

We're still figuring how all this went. Who actually knew but we know the names at the top we're getting in but maybe, did any of these people leak information? Were any names leaked through them? I mean, this is where this investigation needs to go. Others are getting involved as we get more information simply.

PERINO: All right, Eric.

BOLLING: My mind is blown right now. I'm telling you, Adam, this is the smoking gun. I know a lot of people are saying it, well, let's hold off and wait and see what happens. But for Susan rice, we played a sound bite of her last month saying I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on this count today. And then we know now that she was the one who, on multiple occasions, demanded to know who these people were.

Unmask these, you know, redacted names of U.S. citizen one, two, three through, who knows what number -- time and time again saying she wanted and then she got the information and then for her to say just a week and a half ago or two weeks ago to say, I have no knowledge of this. It tells me the smoke is going to lead to her fire, number one. Number two, once she had those names, Adam, the felony is what happened next. How did the public get those names?

HOUSELY: Well, that's what we have to find out.

BECKEL: I'm sorry.

PERINO: All right.

HOUSELY: Sorry, as I was saying it's difficult.

PERINO: No, you go ahead. You can keep talking.

HOUSELY: Sorry Bob. Go ahead Bob.

BECKEL: No, answer --



BECKEL: Answer Eric's question. That's all right. You're fine. Do you remember it?

GUILFOYLE: Oh my god. Derail.

HOUSELY: I got it. Just a leak. Go ahead, Bob.

BECKEL: No, it's OK.

HOUSELY: It's the leak. That's where it's going to lead to, I mean, that's what we have to figure out.


BECKEL: I'll be very quick. I got two fast questions. Did Susan Rice do anything illegal?

HOUSELY: That's a gray area, Bob. I'm not a lawyer and I can't honestly delve into that. I'm just going on what we're finding and what they tell us is the -- the way the names were unmasked was unprecedented to them. Legality is not my specialty.

BECKEL: OK, but if they are unmasked, you know, the fear of being unmasked is that you're caught up in something that potentially is illegal. Now, is there any indication at all that any of these Trump people that were unmasked had done anything illegal? It wasn't the Russian investigation. It was investigating people were not involved in that at all. So, where is the damage here?

HOUSELY: At this point, no.

BOLLING: Can I jump in, Bob? The damage is when you unmasked and then you leak the name. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

BECKEL: How about the people in the White House --

PERINO: I've got one more question for Adam then and I want Adam to be (INAUDIBLE). Adam, do we still have you?



PERINO: OK, so here's the question and then we will let you go because we are not being very organized. So, Susan Rice has not spoken publicly since these allegations or since your reporting over the weekend. That seems to me untenable, that somebody -- either something is going to have to come out and speak on her behalf or she's going to have to come out in the next, I would say 24 hours to try to explain things. Have you heard anything from her camp or from former Obama administration officials who are willing to speak for them?

HOUSELY: As of right now, no. We've reached out. We're continuing to reach out. We're doing our best to find obviously ways to reach out to different campaign individuals, people that worked for obviously the administration. At this point, we have really not had any feedback or any response as of yet. We hope to get some.

You know, you might imagine if true, Dana, you know this more than probably any of us here. It's a pretty big revelation as the guys and gals that we've talked to continue to say this is not normal. They've not seen this and that's why we started looking into it.

BECKEL: Did you buy into this dude (ph) Farkas from the Defense Department who said this is part of the Obama administration wanting to unveil all the classified information? First of all, who is that dude? Secondly --

GUILFOYLE: It's a woman.


BECKEL: That's even worse, I've never heard of her before.

PERINO: What do you mean it's even -- why is it even worse?

BECKEL: Why is it even worse?

PERINO: Bob, save yourself.


BECKEL: Wait a second. I want to hear an answer. Did you talk to Farkas or not?

HOUSELY: No, we haven't talked Bob. We reached out through myself and other people at Fox News to just about everybody you can imagine so far. We're going to continue to do so. They will respond at some point but as you know, it's only been going on now for what, less than 12 hours. Specifically that was Rice and we got little more specific into what we found and so far, we haven't got those responses. We're hoping to get them though, Bob --

BECKEL: Good reporting.


PERINO: Adam, don't hold it against us. It's "The Five." It's what we do, but we enjoyed having you. Thank you so much. We'll continue to follow your report.

GUILFOYLE: Thank you.

PERINO: Next, Robert Redford once played a Watergate reporter in search of the truth, and now he is warning that the truth is in danger again. So why wasn't he worried before now? Well Greg's got an idea.

GUTFELD: No, I don't.


GUTFELD: It's the 45th anniversary of Watergate, which I guess is like Christmas for liberals. Anyway, Robert Redford wrote about it in The Washington Post. He was in the movie. He is the actor/activist/aging windbag.

Now you'd think the 40th and not the 45th anniversary would be more notable. But President Obama was in power back then and celebrating investigative journalism under his reign would be treasonous. That's when reporters happily went into hibernation, becoming as I call it, Obamatose, i.e. comatose under Obama.

Now Redford calls for "brave journalism" in order to restrain the power hungry. How odd that this is only when his side is out of power. But like a child's diaper, Redford is full of it.

The press is louder and busier than ever. Who the hell is trying to shut them up or down? With Trump, journalists are actually rediscovering their job. He's made them great again, because they hate him so much. I mean, what would Redford be doing or the media entertainment cabal be doing in general if Hillary were president? Nothing. Or rather, nothing on her. They'd have to return to bashing cops and labeling everybody racist.

So Robert can warn the world that the press is in danger, but Trump proves him wrong by the endless media frenzy his election has caused. And by comparison, Trump exposes what shameless shills they were for so long under Obama -- coveting, not covering a president. Maybe Redford can make a movie about that. Call it "Love Story."

You know, Kimberly, the idea that somehow the media has been silenced during the Trump presidency is kind of hilarious, because that's all you hear about. If you turn -- every channel is Trump all the time, and nobody -- and nobody is telling them what to do.

GUILFOYLE: They even are running subscriptions from different papers, saying, "We'll give you all the news on Trump, Brexit, this." And it's always the lead. Because you know, he rates; he sells papers, rates well for shows, the whole thing.

But there really is kind of an insurrection on the part of the mainstream media to try to bring down the presidency, and it's also fueled by the Democratic Party, who really wants to repeat what they feel is a success of Watergate. They've been promising that Trump will not finish out his first term, that he will be impeached or that he will be forced to resign.

So what do you do is you see, just like a full onslaught of negative press and stories that are even, at some point, like the L.A. Times article, speaking of bordering on delusional, like referring to Hitler and Satan and all these things. It's -- it's too much.

GUTFELD: Dana, shouldn't they be thanking him? That they actually can get up in the morning and...

PERINO: Well, and also that, according to, like, The New York Times, their subscriptions are up.


PERINO: Like, they should be thanking him that they're going to hopefully, maybe be able to hold onto their jobs, because the industry has changed so much.

And most of these people that are in journalism today decided to go into journalism because of Watergate, because of the work that Woodward and Bernstein had done. And then they had these, like, desires to do something like that and then they get -- you're right. I think the Obama administration, they were sort of like, "Oh, Benghazi."

GUTFELD: Yes. Don't be -- don't be investigating right now. Wait till...

PERINO: Yes, the press is alive and well.

GUTFELD: Yes. Eric, do you think that maybe Robert Redford thinks he's a journalist because he played one?

BOLLING: No, I don't think so. I think he's an activist. He loves -- he loves -- he's a liberal. And he likes to take shots at Trump, as do a lot of the media, liberal media. But I think it's hilarious, because they're all in a frenzy, I think I heard (ph) over the weekend, like bees buzzing around the hive. They love it. But -- and this is the best part of it: Trump doesn't care. Doesn't care that he's ticking them off, and they're going crazy. And the more he laughs...

PERINO: You don't think he cares?


PERINO: Then why do you think that he...

BOLLING: No. I think he...

PERINO: You think he -- I think he loves it.

BOLLING: ... I think he gets off on calling them fake news. They go crazy: "How dare you call us fake news? We're journalists. Look at what we can do."

And he sits back and goes, "See, I got you. You're talking about me. You're talking about me every day."

GUILFOYLE: Then he says, "Very fake news."

BOLLING: So but the point is, the egomaniacs in the mainstream media just can't take it that they're being called fake. And they just try and prove themselves over and over again. And it's like when you try and explain yourself, that you're not a thing, you look more like that thing.

BECKEL: You say that -- you use the word "egomaniac," but you leave Trump out of that?

First of all, I always like your commentary, but Watergate, I'm the only one here old enough to have been through that.

GUTFELD: I was good (ph).

BECKEL: It was the single -- it was the single worst crime committed against this country. It has nothing -- the rest of these scandals have nothing to do with it.

The second thing is I'd like to know what it is that Trump has done that's right. What he says is fake news. Name me one or two things that are fake that he's exposed.

GUTFELD: But you know, that's an interesting argument. You're supposed to name them. Like, you're asking -- you're trying to make us do the legwork for you.

BECKEL: OK. No, I don't think he's made an honest statement yet.

GUILFOYLE: So says Sponge Alo (ph) at the Beckel Institute.

BOLLING: Here's what fake news could be interpreted as, Bob. So everyone is, like, micromanaging [SIC] every single word out of his mouth. Every Twitter -- tweet he makes. Yet no one acknowledges some of the good things that he's doing.

I mean, consumer confidence at 16-year highs is amazing. Home prices at 31-month highs is amazing. Jobs staying here. The economy getting better...

GUILFOYLE: Markets, yes.

BOLLING: But all they can talk about is what did he say about Russia? Did he use air quotes when he said "wiretap," or did he not? It's -- it actually, it plays right into his...

BECKEL: Did you read a story this weekend about all the people who supported Trump, their economic -- all these things you talk about, these statistics mean nothing. These people have no new jobs.

BOLLING: Do you know what matters? Do you know what matters?


BOLLING: Consumer confidence matters. It's a 70 percent consumer economy. That matters. But you won't hear that, though.

BECKEL: What, that it's an important statistic?

BOLLING: Yes. It's a massively important statistic.

BECKEL: I don't know. You ought to to tell them that in rural Ohio.

GUTFELD: All right. We will. During the break, I'm going to call you, rural Ohio.

Trump defender Matt Drudge has some advice for the president: disappear for a while. Hear that next.


BOLLING: Matt Drudge is the founder of the wildly popular Drudge Report. Last Friday, I mentioned that I believe he's one of the important voices for the conservative movement. Drudge has been a big supporter of our president, and he rarely does interviews, but he just gave one to Michael savage and had some suggestions for our president.


MATT DRUDGE, FOUNDER, THE DRUDGE REPORT: I wish he would just go to work behind the scenes. Just go away behind the scenes and go to work.


DRUDGE: But I think after Bill Clinton, you had to be in the public face every day. You had to be a part of the pop culture. Obama took it to new heights. The cover of "People" magazine every other week or you're out of favor.

I don't think Donald Trump needs to be -- President Trump needs to be out front every day saying something. I think we would respect him if he got serious things done, and the end result, you judge the tree by the fruit.


BOLLING: K.G., your thoughts on this?

GUILFOYLE: Yes, he's good. He's a smart guy. He's been around. He's seen a lot of things. And happy birthday to Michael Savage. My brother was over there, as well.

So I think that this is good advice. You know, let sort of the action, the results, the accomplishments speak for themselves. Because especially with his presidency, it doesn't matter. Anything that -- kind of that he says, they're going to try to turn and use against him. So I think sort of, you know, get in the bunker. Huddle up with the team that you have, get the rest of the people in that can help you achieve the goals and move it forward that way. I think that Matt is offering him legitimate advice, his honest opinion about what to do to succeed with the communications aspect of the presidency.

BOLLING: All right. Beckel, your thoughts? I mean, he's basically saying kind of what he said before: the media is reporting all the things that Trump says on Twitter rather than some of the accomplishments.

BECKEL: Well, there's one thing he's absolutely right about was Obama. I mean, Obama couldn't get off the air for a second.

And it's interesting about presidents. When they get in trouble, they tend to think the best thing to do is go out and fix it, get in front of the cameras, when exactly the opposite. I agree with Drudge on that. And I would hope that Trump, while he goes away, learns how to be president. That would be a good thing for him to do.

BOLLING: Interesting. Dana, your thoughts on Matt Drudge's advice?

PERINO: Well, I think one of the things President Trump could do if he were to take Drudge's advice is to utilize the vice president and the cabinet more. So that if you need to fill the vacuum and have somebody on TV and arrive at a message, it's to utilize the cabinet. Now they're all in place -- or I think Alex Costa (ph) will be soon. So they're all there. And then pick a -- pick a cabinet member and get them out there so that they're actually helping him so that he can leave them wanting more.

And I think the tactics, those communication tactics so worked well for him on the campaign trail. And it hasn't worked as well for him in the first 100 days. So I think this is pretty good advice, but it is very hard, because the easiest thing to do in a communications -- if you have a communications problem at the White House is to get the president to go out there and try to fix it for you, because he is your best salesman.


PERINO: But I think this is probably pretty good advice. But he has good cabinet officials that he could utilize.

BECKEL: He could use DeVos and Ben Cardin [SIC]. Now he'd be AA-plus when he came out.


BOLLING: Greg, your thoughts on whether Trump should change his tactics now after, A, a year and a half of an election, and now whatever.

GUTFELD: Yes, I'm trying to figure out if Drudge's advice were the opposite, what would we say? "That's great advice. He should get out there more often and talk more."

Drudge is the ultimate recluse. I'm not even sure that was him talking, because we don't even have any proof.

GUILFOYLE: He was in studio.

GUTFELD: I'm not sure about that. That could have been anybody. Nobody has ever met Drudge. I met him once at a funeral.

GUILFOYLE: My brother was right there.

GUTFELD: I don't -- show me the pictures, Kimberly. Anyway, he's not even -- I mean, this guy has less exposure than Bigfoot. So I guess he knows what it's like.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my goodness.

BOLLING: There you go. We'll leave it right there.

Stay right there, in fact. Bob is really excited to tell you about a new Trump approval poll, and guess what it looks like?


BECKEL: This weekend, the L.A. Times editorial board aptly coined the Trump presidency a train wreck of a magnitude nothing could have prepared us for. The president's approval rating has sunk to new lows. Just 34 percent think he's doing a good job. He's only been in office for 73 days, but Chuck Todd thinks Mr. Trump has dug himself a hole for himself so deep he's not going to be able to get out of it.


CHUCK TODD, HOST, NBC'S "MEET THE PRESS": You have a presidency right now that I think is -- it's beyond saying it's in crisis mode. It's -- you know, it's on the brink. The question is, on the brink of what? Is it on the brink of collapse? Is it on the brink of becoming a temporarily lame- duck presidency? Maybe it feels lame-duckish temporarily right now. You've got a stalled agenda, Republicans who have no fear of this president right now. They don't think there's a political penalty to buck him.


BECKEL: You know, it's an interesting point, Eric. The -- Trump needs a win badly. I mean, that's, I think, the tactic for him, that's probably his best chance at it. But right now when he starts to threaten people in the Freedom Caucus and other places by going out and campaigning against them -- if I had 34 percent coming out and campaign against me, I'd say fine, good. Campaigning for my opponent's going to help me.

BOLLING: Pew Research two days ago, three days ago, I'm sorry, had the president's job approval rating at 42 percent or 44 percent, depending on which poll you want to look at, the phone or the web poll. The personal favorability, 42-44. And 45-49 for strong leader. So it depends what poll you look at.

I don't disagree that his poll numbers could come up. I think, again, it's one of those things where he does things that tick off a lot of people, like some of the tweets. And he'll even -- maybe even upset some of the people who voted for him, but he's doing -- he's running the presidency the way he wants to.

And again, we've talked about what really matters to the American people, and it's not some of the things that we're satellite -- paying attention to. It's what -- it's the economy. It's jobs. Is your -- if your family going to be better off going forward? And on all those fronts, under the Trump presidency 73 days in, things are better than when he took over.

BECKEL: But the public doesn't seem to understand that. That's the problem.


BECKEL: Go ahead.

GUILFOYLE: I think it's no surprise that his numbers are low. How could they not be, given the barrage of bad press, the whole echo chamber over the Russia story? He's getting hit with, like, heavy C-130 fire every single day. They are hard-pressed to find any positive thing to be able to say, accomplishments, because they don't want to do it.

But guess what? They did this to him during the election, and everybody said there's no way that he was going to get the nomination. Then there was no way that he was going to win the presidency. Both of those things, they were proved wrong.

And here you have, I think, a series of good, positive news stories that will be coming forward with Neil Gorsuch, with him getting confirmed. Right? And then also, when it comes down to it, the economy is what's going to float the boat. With getting job numbers up, like consumer confidence, like Eric talked about. Money in the pockets of hard-working men and women, that's what's going to resound. Those numbers, they're not going to be able to shape shift on him, because they're going to tell the tale. That's going to be the facts.

So I think that's what he needs; he needs some positive wins going forward. And like I was saying, yes, stay off the Twitter in terms of, like, you know, engaging in these little, like, bait and click tactics that they're doing right here. And go ahead and get your nominee confirmed. Go ahead and get the taxes done that you want to do and the regulations that you want to decrease and move your agenda forward.

BECKEL: OK, Greg, the honeymoon period is supposed to be a period when a president enjoys the support of the public, at least until he does something wrong. I take it you agree that Trump needs a win here. You got any idea what it might be?

GUTFELD: I think he needs a win, but I disagree on the utility of a honeymoon period. If you have the House and the Senate, this is a time to be unpopular. This is the time where you expend capital.

And whether you like Trump or not may not matter. You can dislike your boss but still enjoy the work that that person is doing and have a good feeling about the direction of the company, i.e. consumer confidence. You -- if you feel that way, you can still dislike the person but go, so you do this pole but you still might vote for him again.

And also, liberals have got to figure out, is Trump Hitler or a huckleberry? Because one minute he's evil; and the next he's incompetent. You know, if you can't decide which one he is, then you're probably wrong on both counts.

BECKEL: What do you think about that, Dana?

PERINO: I think it's too early to say. And I think that the health care bill not passing, that was a blow. But I think also, that people weren't that unhappy that it didn't pass. Right? Because a lot of people didn't like it. And Democrats had even started working against it. So I think it was a chance to be -- hit down, and then you have the comeback. Because those poll numbers eventually, they'll come up, unless something drastic happens and they go down even further. But they're likely to come up, and then what will they say -- what will the media say? In spite of all of these terrible things, the poll numbers went up? I just think it's too early to say.

BOLLING: By the way, Obama have the exact opposite going on. His poll numbers were strong and going up, and the economic numbers were crashing and burning. I for one, probably everyone at this table, anywhere else in the world would say, "We'll have the opposite." The good economy and the bad poll numbers.

BECKEL: OK. We will see. "One More Thing" is up next.


GUILFOYLE: It's time now for "One More Thing," and I'll begin with moi.

The White House released the first official photo and portrait of first lady Melania Trump on Monday. Fantastic picture, and she said, "I'm honored to serve in the role of first lady and look forward to working on behalf of the American people over the coming years." And this photo was taken at their residence at the White House. We don't have the information yet on the photographer.

BECKEL: Man, she is good-looking, isn't she?

GUTFELD: All right, Bob.

GUILFOYLE: Perfect. Really helped.

BECKEL: Well...

PERINO: There you go, Bob. She is beautiful, absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: Gorgeous and nice and a very, very good mother. I can say this from personal experience.

OK, Dana.

PERINO: All right. I just want to say congratulations to the University of South Carolina Gamecocks. The ladies' team, basketball team won their first -- what is it? It's not the Final Four.

BOLLING: NCAA championship.

BECKEL: The championship.

PERINO: Do they call it the final four, too?

BECKEL: No, the final four to get to the...

PERINO: Why do you only get that for guys? That's probably unfair. It's a big deal. And Dawn Staley, who is the coach, she actually played for the team 25 years ago and said she never thought she'd see this day. But anyway, congratulations to them. South Carolina, I was there this weekend. Everyone was pretty excited.

GUILFOYLE: All right. OK, Greg.

GUTFELD: Speaking of gamecocks.


GRAPHIC: Greg's Romantic News


GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh.

BECKEL: Greg's Romance News?

GUTFELD: When you're taking a young woman out on a date, especially a concert, a band that you like, you often want to show off how well you know the songs and how much the songs mean to you. But don't overdo it like this young fellow here. This is just ridiculous.




PERINO: This is cute. Have you guys seen this?


PERINO: It's pretty funny. Watch.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh.

PERINO: They didn't pick the best part of the video.

GUTFELD: That's coming at the end. Watch it. Here we go. Yes!

PERINO: Somebody said that's like me and you on "The Five"."

GUTFELD: Amazing.

BOLLING: Look at her. She...

GUTFELD: Yes, she so doesn't want to be there. She's like, get me away from this dude.

BOLLING: Can I give you a little idea?

GUILFOYLE: God, don't you know that feeling.

BOLLING: Thought, an idea, that Greg's Romance News. I thought you should read it like, real throaty. Romance.

GUTFELD: Like Barry White.

GUILFOYLE: I think you're ripping off my K.G.'s Dating Tips.

GUTFELD: Mine was first.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, please.

BECKEL: You want to know my...

GUTFELD: My producer said mine was first.



GUTFELD: Bob's Romance News. Paid by the hour.

GUILFOYLE: No. Oh, my gosh. Please.

BECKEL: You're so far out of this. You know?

GUILFOYLE: Let's please end this. I'm trying to go. I'm going.

BOLLING: OK, so March 26, March Madness started. Remember this?


BOLLING: President Obama kept with tradition, and he picked his bracket. For the final four, Duke, Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina. He has North Carolina over Duke in the championship game. I'll go with Duke, Gonzaga, Kansas, and North Carolina. And I'll have Gonzaga win the whole thing. Just taking the shot.

GUILFOYLE: Are you, like, playing against President Obama but he doesn't know?

BOLLING: Yes, a little bit like that.


BOLLING: All right. So that was March 16. So tonight, guess what happens? It's Gonzaga against UNC. Obama, Eric. We picked it. K.G. called it out. And by the way, bring it on, Obama. Zaga maga. Nine- thirty.

BECKEL: Zaga maga.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh. Dana and I were saying she thought my jumpsuit looked good in there. Right? Right, D? All right, Bob.

BECKEL: This is a little out of my area, but I'm happy to see it. I was in the Peace Corps in Asia, and I was always fascinated by elephants. I don't know why. Probably because I was the size of an elephant.

PERINO: You wanted to be a Republican?

BECKEL: No, but -- the thing that happens with elephants is they were poached and killed and from helicopters to get the ivory. The ivory was selling at 3,000 or $4,000 a kilo. And two years ago, the number of elephants that were killed was just enormous.

Now it's dropped dramatically. And you can thank two things: one a worldwide advocacy program to save the elephants and also the Chinese, which were the single biggest buyers of this, have done a remarkable job of cutting it back. So congratulations to them. They said wrap.


BECKEL: OK, wrap.

GUILFOYLE: Set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "The Five." 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.