This is a rush transcript from "The Five," December 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Greg Gutfeld: Right as usual. I'm Greg Gutfeld with Emily Compagno, Juan Williams, Jesse Watters, and she bungee jumps on a shoelace, Dana Perino -- "The Five." Did I use that –


Male Speaker: The House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment charging the President of the United States Donald J. Trump with committing high crimes and misdemeanors. The first article is for abuse of power. This gives rise to the second article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress.


Greg Gutfeld: So that's it, two accusations that are so vague they can mean anything and nothing, which is the point. After all, when there is no crime, you've got to leave it to the imagination. And boy, is this open to interpretation. It's like a Rorschach test for the blind, which suits the media perfectly. Remember how this process was reverse engineered. It wasn't, "Here is a crime, let's impeach." It was, "Let's impeach and hope we find the crime." It's the holiday reboot of "let's pass the bill to see what's in it," Pelosi's last big hit, and what a flop. Worse than Angry Birds 2. And we knew it, yet we still had to carry the farce, despite it featuring clowns who joked about Baron and played dishonestly edited clips of Trump. But while the press tortured viewers by pretending it mattered, one question remained; why didn't the Republicans just bolt? After all, we all knew it was just a stupid skit designed to make Dems feel good since they're immune to feeling stupid. The rest of us are left with what cops call the mess, meaning when thieves break into a house and find zilch, the only thing left to do is trash the place; hence, the amorphous abuse of power which anyone can now use on the Dems. And they should. I mean, when you move forward with a three-year witch trial, knowing the only sport will be partisan and therefore doomed to fail, while boasting that you'll keep doing it forever, isn't that an abuse of power? It's certainly an abuse of America's patience, institutions, trust, and cohesion, which makes it another media-assisted hoax, collusion, Covington, Kavanaugh, now this. If you want to find the lie, just look where the media points its cameras.

I have a theory, Dana, I would like to share with you.

Dana Perino: Love your theories.

Greg Gutfeld: I do, too. Okay, so I believe this impeachment process satisfies the media while helping Trump in key battleground states, correct?

Dana Perino: Yes.

Greg Gutfeld: So, what does that sound like? It reminds me of CNN and MSNBC, primarily Morning Joe, doing nonstop mocking coverage of Trump which the media and their ratings enjoyed, but got him elected. So, are they too stupid? Is Morning Joe and CNN just too stupid to see that they're re-electing Trump?

Dana Perino: [affirmative] I see what you've done there with your theory --

Greg Gutfeld: Yes. It's a leading question --

Dana Perino: -- of the media, yeah.

Greg Gutfeld: -- just like the impeachment inquiry.

Dana Perino: I hear it. So, the -- absolutely, the polling shows that -- two things, nationally, Republicans and Democrats, nothing has changed.

Greg Gutfeld: Yeah.

Dana Perino: Okay, so the numbers are the exact same as they were not even just three months ago when impeachment was announced, but three years ago when the president --

Greg Gutfeld: Right.

Dana Perino: -- was elected. And the number of people who disapprove of the presidency is at the -- like 53 percent.

Greg Gutfeld: Right.

Dana Perino: And that was the -- remember what did Hillary Clinton get in the popular vote? About that number. Nothing has been persuasive on either side. Both sides are completely locked in except in one place, and that is in the key battleground states; Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. And those states, in the last three months, impeachment has absolutely hurt the Democrats, and it has helped President Trump. If president -- if President Trump were to lose next November, it will not be because of impeachment.

Greg Gutfeld: Right.

Dana Perino: That will absolutely not be the case. And also, it was just announced that the House Judiciary Committee is going to move so quickly that tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. is when they're going to start the markup -- that means in the committee they're basically saying, "Here is the final details of what we're going to go forward." So, who says Congress can't move quickly?

Greg Gutfeld: Yes, exactly.

Dana Perino: But I think the reason they want to move quickly is they want to rip the Band-Aid off, get this over with because they know that politically, while it was important for their base, they need to move on so that they can try to -- try to, I guess, argue on the merits going into November.

Juan Williams: Don't Andrew Johnson. I think he was impeached in three days. But --

Jesse Watters: That was the fourth time.

Juan Williams: But I would say this about the numbers that Dana was citing accurately --

Dana Perino: Why thank you.

Juan Williams: What?

Dana Perino: I said, "Thank you."

Juan Williams: Well, of course. But I do think that if you look at the numbers and almost half the country favoring impeachment and removal, that's unprecedented. I mean, I go back to Bill Clinton, and it was only like 29 percent --

Greg Gutfeld: Got to hand it to the media.

Juan Williams: -- at the max. No, I think -- look, I think the medias on both sides of this. I think there is conservative media, there's liberal-- I don't know. Whatever.

Greg Gutfeld: Sure, they're all liars.

Juan Williams: There's all kinds of media where people want to be -- simply have their pre-existing opinions affirmed. But I will say that, to my mind, when you look at an allegation like bribery, Greg, and you say, "Oh --"

Greg Gutfeld: Good point.

Jesse Watters: " -- I didn't see -- I don't see the bribery card."

Greg Gutfeld: Right.

Jesse Watters: Right? I see this big bucket. I would say, one, oh, well, gee, I guess it wasn't a fishing expedition. It was done in good faith, and this is what they think. Or, two, that when you look at abuse of power, bribery would be included in such a charge, the so-called quid pro quo allegation, right?

Greg Gutfeld: No, he had the -- you're right, though. The bribery just kind of went away. Do we have a bribery montage that we could throw to at this point that makes us look incredibly sophisticated?


Male Speaker: The evidence shows an impeachable offense, bribery, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice.

Male Speaker: There was a lot of evidence of bribery.

Female Speaker: There's a substantial amount of evidence on the abuse of power, on the question of bribery.

Male Speaker: You can call this extortion. You can call it bribery. It's all the same thing.

Male Speaker: Did the president's demands on Ukraine constitute bribery --

Female Speaker: Treason, bribery, or acts of omission. And in this case, it is -- it's clearly one of those.

Male Speaker: Treason, bribery, high crime -- bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.


Greg Gutfeld: What happened to the bribery?

Juan Williams: Well, I think it's in that bucket I was talking about, abuse of power.

Greg Gutfeld: Yeah, but I think -- but I think the bucket is so amorphous that the Dems are now swimming in that bucket.

Juan Williams: No. I think that that they were actually, as I said, acting in good faith, not fishing --

Greg Gutfeld: I think they --

Juan Williams: -- not a fishing expedition.

Greg Gutfeld: I think they kicked a bucket.

Juan Williams: Ha-ha. You know what, I will say that I would -- when I -- I think -- I can't believe that we're talking about left-wing media, right-wing media, how this report gets interpreted. You know, all of this, even what we're talking about here, what about the fact that it's Trump's people bringing these charges from Vindland to Sondland to Taylor to -- I mean, these are --

Greg Gutfeld: Deep state, Juan. Let me get Jesse in here. Jesse --

Jesse Watters: Yeah.

Greg Gutfeld: The first impeachment probably in history based on emotional trauma.

Jesse Watters: Yeah. I mean, the two articles really are, "We hate you, and we can't beat you." Not anything here. What do you have? First you have no collusion, and then there was no extortion, no bribery. They're just settling on things, Juan. They say, "Obstruction of justice," because Trump said, "I'll see you in court?" Every president tells Congress, "I'll see you in court." You can't impeach someone for saying, "Let a judge decide." And then the other one, "Abuse of power." By that standard, every single president could have been impeached by that very low standard. They tried to rush this thing. The American people saw that it was flimsy, and then they lost interest in it, and now everyone's just talking about football and the Irishman. This is what's going to happen: 10 of these Democrats in Trump districts now in the House, they want to censure. They don't even want to vote on impeachment. They're nervous. And like you said, you're right, Trump was losing to these three Democratic contenders in these battleground states a month ago.

Greg Gutfeld: Right.

Jesse Watters: Now he's beating them all by a lot.

Dana Perino: A lot.

Jesse Watters: And he's had a great year in 2019. He killed Baghdadi, blockbuster job numbers, now they're passing new NAFTA. I mean, any expose to deep state, which we haven't even gotten into, so it's been a good year.

Greg Gutfeld: Let me talk to -- you know, Emily, if you're like me, before I watch a movie, I always go to Wikipedia to look at the plot summary, because I don't like surprises.

Emily Compagno: Oh, I never do. I never look at Wikipedia.

Greg Gutfeld: Oh, I always -- but this is -- I feel like we already knew the plot, and we're --

Emily Compagno: Yes.

Greg Gutfeld: -- and watching this thing unfold. We already know where it's going to go, which is into the Senate, and go, "Pffft."

Emily Compagno: This is true, which is why it's such a surprise that bribery isn't in there. And I hear what you're saying, which is that you are saying it's included in this. But I think that's what is difficult for the average citizen to rap their brain around, is the fact that this writing is very amorphous. It is ambiguous. What does this mean? "Wherefore President Trump, he's demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security." I'm used to a strategy that hits elements of a crime, that presents to a jury, "Here are the elements of this crime, here is the code that is the law, and here is therefore why this defendant committed a crime." What we have here is literally a thesis.

Greg Gutfeld: Yes.

Emily Compagno: And I think what's difficult to stomach about it is that we've been hearing messaging from the left this entire time, including quotes like "President Trump is a criminal," and with that word specifically "bribery," with it magically disappeared. And with these counts not being mutually exclusive, they're not joint -- or sorry, they're not joint, they're several, meaning, why don't we -- why isn't there more? If they were that intent on catching someone who was abusing power, then why wouldn't they try from A to Z and hoping one would stick because just one is enough to remove him from power if it's persuasive. The answer is, it's not.

Greg Gutfeld: It's -- you know what, it goes back to what we said before. These are "what ifers," "what the ifers." They don't know what could happen, so they, "What if this happens? This could happen in the future." They're trying to prosecute him for future crimes. It's just like Minority Report, that great movie with Tom Cruise.

Emily Compagno: I'm going to go to Wikipedia and read the plot summary.

Jesse Watters: Find the plot.

Juan Williams: Yeah, but I might say, if you're looking about, hmm, how does this play out? I think he gets impeached.

Greg Gutfeld: Mm. Well, we shall see, Juan. We shall see. I just coined that phrase. Coming up, Attorney General Bill Barr is blasting the FBI over the FISA report. Hear from him next.


Dana Perino: More fallout after the release of the inspector general's FISA report. Attorney General William Barr blasting the I.G.'s conclusions. Barr calling out the FBI and also going after the media.


Bill Barr: I felt this was very flimsy. These omissions were not satisfactorily explained. And I think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. I think our nation was turned on its head for three years, I think, based on a completely bogus narrative, that was largely fanned and hyped by irresponsible press. And I think that there were gross abuses of FISA and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI.


Dana Perino: The attorney general also doubling down on his assertion that the Trump campaign was spied on.

Bill Barr: Oh, it was clearly spied upon. I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying.


Dana Perino: Jesse, you have been deep in a state of mind on this report and you read -- I watched you, you read the whole executive summary yesterday.

Jesse Watters: Oh yeah.

Dana Perino: You were underlining things. I'm not exactly sure what specifically to ask you about, but maybe we just talk about Bill Barr as the attorney general saying, basically, this -- he's telling, he's saying that the inspector general did not hit the mark.

Jesse Watters: What he's saying is that when you open up an investigation into an opposing political campaign, and if you're the FBI and you open it up based on foreign rumors, that is a very thin predicate to base that on. And not only did you just open up an investigation onto one 28-year-old who has a drunken conversation at a bar, you all of a sudden open on Flynn, open on Manafort, and open on Page. That is dramatic to do at that point. All he's saying is why didn't the FBI give a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign? People say, "Oh well. You don't want to tip the Trump campaign off." Well, you went to the Russians.

Dana Perino: Yes.

Jesse Watters: You alerted the Russians that summer, "Hey, stop messing around. We know what you're doing," but you don't go to the Trump campaign. You don't think they could've gone to Jeff Sessions and say, "Hey, there's going to be some infiltration opportunity. Better watch out, there could be some issues. Let me show you how to deal with it?" No. They investigated the Truman's campaign and not the Russians. Okay. Second point, the spying occurred. There was wiretapping and there was undercover agents that went in and secretly recorded Trump campaign officials.

The dossier, according to the inspector general, was the "central and essential document used to wiretap the campaign." The FBI lawyer said this was essentially a single-source FISA. And they drew almost entirely from the Steele dossier. That means Hillary bought a warrant. That means Hillary paid for foreign interference in an election. And they knew almost immediately the dossier was bogus because when they interviewed the source of Steele's ridiculous report, he said, "Yeah, it's all, it's all nothing. It's all hearsay. It's all junk. Steele doesn't know what the hell he's talking about." And they continued for a year to lie about Steele, and to deceive the court, and to forge documents to make it look like Page was a bad guy when, in fact, he was a good guy.

Dana Perino: Well, it was interesting --

Jesse Watters: And that was the most egregious thing, because you can look at the end of this -- Mueller, what does he do? For two years he knows there's no collusion. They knew for years there was no collusion, yet they put the country through hell to build an obstruction case. This was not an unbiased investigation. I don't care what they say, they had no evidence of bias. That's just because they didn't even admit it. Of course, they're not dumb enough to admit it.

Dana Perino: -- let me ask Juan about this. So, one of the things in the report the I.G. said is that there, that the warrants were justified, that there was evidence for it, and that they couldn't say what the other evidence is and that that, apparently, is because it must come from another source, like the CIA, perhaps?

Juan Williams: Correct. And I think the I.G. report, Dana, speaks for itself. And this is not -- you know, Bill Barr's great at spin, apparently; I think better at spin than at being attorney general. And what he did with the Mueller report was he was able to preempt it and to try to define it before it was out in public. With this case, you know, you couldn't do it, Bill Barr, because guess what? Bill Barr, you have Robert Mueller working for you. You've got John Durham, who's report you're now going to control, working for you. But you don't have Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, working for you. He's independent. So, his analysis comes out and, as I said, the report is very clear: There was no political bias.


None. Zero.


Dana Perino: Just has no documents --

Jesse Watters: And I think --

Jesse Watters: No political bias.

Juan Williams: None. Zero.

Jesse Watters: Okay, so then why'd they lie and deceive the court?

Juan Williams: They didn't deceive the court.

Jesse Watters: Yes, they did, Juan.

Juan Williams: If the court --

Jesse Watters: They withheld information.

Juan Williams: -- they did not. There was --

Jesse Watters: And then they forged documents.

Juan Williams: -- they did not. There was additional --

Jesse Watters: Yes, they did.

Juan Williams: -- information. And there was one person who made -- and this is, you know, now famous -- 17 clerical errors or whatever.


Jesse Watters: They lied.

Juan Williams: But you know what's, you know what's --

Dana Perino: Excuse me, referred to as criminal --

Juan Williams: -- what's key here is it doesn't even matter what's in the report, even though we can all read it, because the right wing will continue with conspiracy theories that can't be proved.

Greg Gutfeld: Juan. All right. Wait, wait, wait.

Juan Williams: The never-ending story.

Jesse Watters: You guys said that the --

Juan Williams: The never-ending story.

Jesse Watters: -- FISA thing was clean and you were wrong.

Juan Williams: No, it wasn't me.

Jesse Watters: You guys said the dossier --


-- had nothing to do --

Juan Williams: Look.

Jesse Watters: -- with the FISA report.

Juan Williams: You know what?

Jesse Watters: And you were wrong. You were wrong the whole time.

Juan Williams: No, it was not. In fact, it's unbelievable that you would say anybody except -- and you know what you should say?

Juan Williams: Say anybody except, you know what you should say.

Greg Gutfeld: What?

Juan Williams: Well, I apologize because this report is out.

Greg Gutfeld:

I apologize?

Juan Williams: You should apologize.

Jesse Watters: I think Hillary should apologize and Jim Comey too.

Dana Perino: Can I ask, let me ask Greg something?

Juan Williams: No facts apparently matter.

Jesse Watters: Read the report Juan.

Greg Gutfeld: Yeah, you should read the report.

Dan Perino: So, the FBI and now that they've got this report, they're going to do an audit. They might have some changes, but there are like no consequences. And also, you haven't heard anybody in the media doesn't really say that the Obama administration. Somebody had to have been checking this stuff off.

Juan Williams: And when they knew that the dossier was a fraud, they didn't want to tell anybody because they realized they were that's the gooey hot center to all of this. It really bothers me because it puts bar room stories like I have a million bar room stories. This is what Jesse said this too. This was based on a on bar room gossip that even Steele couldn't verify and said he couldn't back up and yet that was the thing that launched a three year which trial a bar my God, I have bar room stories that could this is that but when one you say conspiracies. That's the best. That's the conspiracy theory to kill all conspiracy theories. A golden shower tape that never happened that had to do in Obama's bed that he stayed in a hotel and Trump walked in there, decided, hey, let's defile this bed. That's a conspiracy theory.

Dana Perino: Then I clicked my pen twice.

Juan Williams: And then I clicked but the thing is also about the 17 mistakes. They are all mistakes, but they're all mistakes in one direction and if it's the same direction benefiting one perspective, I think you call that pride.

Greg Gutfeld: Yeah, maybe that's why the FBI agents were cheering on Trump after the election.

Dana Perino: So, the FBI is going to surveil Page, but Page is also, and it says in the report, a source for the CIA. So how does that work?

Emily Compagno: Well, that's why we're missing a lot of evidence that Durham has referenced. And I think the important part here is to respond to your point. You know, the attorneys for the OIG, they take as testimony. True. They take as testimony fact. Meaning if someone says, nope, I am not biased. Then they will put that down and say, OK, then there was no bias. And I think the most important part, the crucial element to this is the fact that the attorney general has come out and said that there are gross and clear abuse of their surveillance process. And what we see here in these mistakes, which I refuse to call them, that they are clear omissions. As you said, it was always to one side. This includes these consensually monitored statements from both Page and Manafort that that was exculpatory if that if one of us was being prosecuted. And you learned that prosecution withheld consistently exculpatory evidence. And then the attorney general and says comes out and says during the investigation, it was consistently exculp -- everything we uncovered was to one side. Where do we stop? Where does the investigation stop? Why then did they keep going until they found a modicum, a tiny bit of evidence that went to the truth that they had already concluded? The answer is this impeachment.

Dana Perino: We're going to have more on this reaction to the FISA report in just a moment. President Trump excuse me. They just changed the teleprompter on me. President Trump apparently just spoke with the media about the FISA report. We're going to show that to you next.


Juan Williams: Welcome back the president has responded at the White House to the report on FISA. And we have that tape. It's coming up. He took one question while standing on the White House. I think it was on the south lawn, right?

Dana Perino: Yep.

Juan Williams: You think so, Dana? Oh, here he is.


Donald Trump: Okay pretty wet out here we're going to Hershey, Pennsylvania, tonight. We have a big rally, a lot of people, tremendous lines, great enthusiasm. There's never been this enthusiasm, in my opinion but the Republican Party. The Republicans have stuck together there's a witch hunt. It's a terrible thing. But even the Democrats, they couldn't find very much because they put up two articles that, frankly, are very weak and they're very weak. Also, they approved today of all days we've been waiting a year and they approved today, the USMCA and I call that the silver lining to impeachment, because without the impeachment, they would have never approved it, in my opinion. The impeachment is the reason they approved it and interestingly, one hour after the news conference, they went out and did a news conference on the big trade deal, the great trade deal, one of the greatest trade deals ever made for our country. And the reason is they wanted to muffle down the impeachment because they're embarrassed by it and they couldn't get the votes. And that's exactly what happened. So, it's a terrible thing when they do something like that. But now it goes to, I guess, a vote and I assume they will probably have to have the votes are very weak articles, but very importantly, today we get USMCA. And that's going to be a great thing for our farmers, our manufacturers, for our -- for just about everybody. That's good for everybody. Unions included. I spoke with Richard Trumka, I spoke to James Hoffa and we had good talks at the union people. I did that a few days ago. We had some very good talks. And everybody is really loving the USMCA so we're very happy about that. Very, very happy.


Say it. Go ahead.


Donald Trump: His what?

The Press: [unintelligible] do you think you will not be impeached?

Donald Trump: Well, I think the Democrats -- I can't imagine they vote for it because we did nothing wrong. There was absolutely nothing done wrong. They've analyzed my conversation every way you can, and when you talk about, you know, the word "favor" was mentioned, and it was mentioned not me a favor, you just saw the way it was. And it was nothing to do with me. This has to do with the United States. The word was "us," "Can you do us a favor?" Then we talked about the country. And we talked about seeing the attorney general of the United States. When you look at it -- and that was just a part of it. It was a congratulatory call. And there were two of them. Nobody even mentions the other one. We had another one where they won -- originally, he won the election. And I think it's a disgrace that people can make impeachment out of nothing. That was a perfect conversation. If you look at Mark Levin, he analyzed the conversation, one of the great Constitutional lawyers. Many of them have. They were perfect conversations. There's nothing to impeach on. And I think it's a disgrace. I think it's an absolute -- I think it's an absolute disgrace. So, let's say they vote on it. I don't know when they're going to vote. Who knows? All I know is they were very embarrassed by it, and that's why they brought up USMCA an hour after, because they figured it'll muffle it a little bit. And if you look at -- if you looked at the poll numbers, the Fire House poll just came out, and we're way ahead of everybody in every state, every -- you know, most of the -- I think most of the swing states, we're way ahead. And, you know what? I don't know if that's impeachment or the fact that we have the best economic numbers that we've ever had in our country, and the best unemployment numbers and employment numbers. We have the best numbers we've ever had in our country, so I think that has something to do with it. You saw on Friday 266,000 jobs, new jobs. And other countries all over the world, they're not doing well. We're doing great. We're the hottest country --


Juan Williams: You know, Jesse, I -- I'm amazed. You know, I listen to this, and he just is out there. He punches, counter punches, he's slamming. He doesn't stop. What at some point, do you think, from my perspective, it's like he's just flooding the zone. There's no fact-checking. He just gets -- and people buy it, especially on the right-wing media. He's praising Mark Levin.

Jesse Watters: I don't see anything wrong with that.

Juan Williams: Okay.

Jesse Watters: I think he being on offense is effective. And he's got to speak the truth. He's a great promoter of himself and the campaign and the Republican party. And no one does it better than he does. So, that's fine. I think Democrats like you maybe are frustrated because he's such an eloquent speaker and so precise with his combative pronunciations and denunciations that your head is spinning. And it just frustrates you. And it must be frustrating because, here's the deal: If the economy was in the gutter, and this country was sad, and there was terrorist attacks, and there was a horrible war, impeachment would be really, really hot, and people would be ready to short-circuit this guy early. But it's not. Things are great. And so, for them to do this now and pull the chain looks super petty, and everybody knows it.

Juan Williams: Well, I think that would mean it was a political thing if the economy was the issue as opposed to what they are alleging, which is abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

Jesse Watters: Right. Now it looks partisan.

Juan Williams: Okay.

Jesse Watters: That's my point.

Juan Williams: Dana, how did you react to the president's statement?

Dana Perino: Well, I think it -- he has to be on offense. The alternative is to sit there and be punched in the face on impeachment [unintelligible]. And, one, that's just not in his nature. It's also not good politics. He has a country to run as commander in chief, but he's also got an election to try to win. He can't take any vote for granted. That's why he's out there doing these rallies and he has to go to these places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. And if he -- you know, he is going to press his advantage there, and he should.

Juan Williams: All right. Greg, I have to apologize, but they –

Greg Gutfeld: I'll say one thing. I don't think he could have exited this in a better situation, with a great economy, with a really weak -- these two articles of impeachment. He's got job -- I mean, he should be very happy right now. He's going to have a great rally.

Jesse Watters: Yeah.

Juan Williams: Well, he's going to have a big rally in Pennsylvania, and you can watch, I think, right here on Fox News channel. Hillary Clinton, she's topping a new 2020 poll. Can you believe that? Despite the fact that she's not even in the race. Now, what does that say about the Democrats? Find out next right here on "The Five."


Jesse Watters: Just how that is, the 2020 field. Democratic voters are actually looking to 2016 loser Hillary Clinton as the person to beat Trump. She's topping a new poll, beating out candidates who are actually in the race, like Biden, Liz, and Bernie. Wow. This is big, Juan.

Juan Williams: Oh, it's huge.

Jesse Watters: This is big.

Juan Williams: It's huge.

Jesse Watters: When is she getting in?

Juan Williams: Oh, stop the presses.


Juan Williams: This is such foolishness. She's not in the race. This is a crazy poll. I mean, I don't even know what to say to you, Jesse. I mean, despite all that, Biden is leading the race. You've got -- I mean, the New York Times attacks Biden, Trump attacks Biden. It keeps going. And not only that, Hillary Clinton has said she's not getting in the race. But this is a right-winning -- more conspiracy.

Jesse Watters: So you think this is poll driven?

Emily Compagno: Well --

Jesse Watters: They think -- you know, they sauce up some juicy poll to get headlines?

Emily Compagno: I think this always happens. We saw this in 2016 with Biden. The grass is always greener with a candidate that's not actually in. And I think she knew exactly what she was doing by going on Howard Stern, which is stirring up these rumors that she will run in 2020. And the fact that she's, you know, kind of attacking Biden for how -- or, I mean, Bernie for how quickly he endorsed her, it just goes to show why smart Democrats don't want anything to do with her in 2020, because she's obsessed with vindicating 2016, and no one wants anything to do with that.

Jesse Watters: I think she's enjoying overshadowing this field, Dana.

Dana Perino: Yeah. I mean, if you have a book coming out, this time of year and you're going to go on a book tour, then you definitely know what you're doing, in fact.

Jesse Watters: Yeah.

Dana Perino: So, when you have your book coming out, let me know, and I'll help you on the timing to make sure you hit it just correctly.

Jesse Watters: Okay.

Dana Perino: But don't look now, Bernie Sanders is having a bit of a comeback moment. He is now in second place. And in one poll, he was pulling number one in California.

Jesse Watters: Wow.

Dana Perino: And I think that the, I think Juan said that the chances of a contested convention are now at 25 percent.

Jesse Watters: I think I said that.


I've been talking about a contested convention for a month.


Dana Perino: Okay. Well, I'll give you the credit.


Jesse Watters: I want the credit until it doesn't happen. Then it's Juan's idea.


Dana Perino: The Bernie thing is kind of real at the moment.

Jesse Watters: All right. Greg, what do you think?

Greg Gutfeld: Well, Hillary keeps saying, "Everybody wants me to run. Everybody wants me to run." She leaves the last word off that sentence, "Everybody wants me to run away." They want her to run away. There's -- if she actually jumps into this race, Bernie will get the nomination because this is not going to happen a second time.

Dana Perino: Right.

Greg Gutfeld: His folks are going to get behind him. They're going to go crazy. Meanwhile, Biden is just getting angrier and angrier, and more ornery. He's like, he's snapping. He's snapping more than garters at the Mustang Ranch.


A little blue humor there for Dana. I mean, he's challenging a lamp post to pushups.

Juan Williams: Well, wait a second. You said he was sleepy before.

Greg Gutfeld: No, I didn't. I said, no, he's ornery and angry.

Juan Williams: Okay.

Greg Gutfeld: It's like after a nap. You know when you're on a plane and you go to sleep on a plane for three hours, and you wake up and you think that the plane's flying but it's still there? Remember? That's how Joe is every day now. It's like he's just mad and he's cranky.

Jesse Watters: He is however we say he is, Juan.


Juan Williams: Oh, okay. That's right. Yeah, conspiracies.

Jesse Watters: Coming up, Fastest 7.


Emily Compagno: Merry Christmas, Greg. Welcome back. Time for the Fastest 7. First up, this viral ad from fitness company Peloton ignited a national debate on sexism. Actor Ryan Reynolds found the Peloton wife and made this response ad for his gin company.


Female Speaker: This gin is really smooth.

Female Speaker: Yeah.

Female Speaker: We can get you another one, if you like? You're safe here. To new beginnings.

Female Speaker: To new beginnings.

Female Speaker: To new beginnings.

Female Speaker: You look great, by the way.


Greg Gutfeld: [laughs]

Juan Williams: [laughs]

Emily Compagno: Okay. Dana, do you think that response ad was more helpful for Ryan Reynolds and Aviation Gin or Peloton?

Dana Perino: I just think that Peloton has one this hands down. And what husbands are worried about right now, it's not that they are worried --

Jesse Watters: [laughs] Tell us, Dana.

Dana Perino: -- that they are going to be called sexist if they get their wife a Peloton, it's that they will be called cheap if they don't.



Greg Gutfeld: You, I mean, can I? Like, Elena has been asking me for this damn thing for like a year. This ad is basically saying, "Better to be a total drunk guzzling gin with your friends than live a happy life with a grateful, boring husband." Right?

Dana Perino: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Emily Compagno: Yeah.


Jesse Watters: Gregory, "Right?"

Dana Perino: Yeah. I'm squeezing your hand, right?

Greg Gutfeld: Yes.

Jesse Watters: I don't think this ignited a national debate at all. I think a few idiots on Twitter called it sexist and then we all started talking about how stupid it was.

Greg Gutfeld: Welcome to the Fastest 7.

Jesse Watters: I know.

Greg Gutfeld: All of our stories are based on Twitter reaction.

Jesse Watters: Right. So --


-- and then this woman hit the jackpot, now that she's famous, and Ryan Reynolds, I mean, he's got a gin company?

Emily Compagno: Yeah.

Jesse Watters: What am I -- I've got to get a gin company.

Greg Gutfeld: No, you don't [laughs].

Jesse Watters: I've got to get a --

Dana Perino: Call John Rich.

Emily Compagno: Well --

Jesse Watters: -- some company.

Emily Compagno: -- who's that, like, really attractive guy that married the attorney, human rights --

Juan Williams: Like that fella Clooney.

Emily Compagno: -- no. Clooney, he has --

Juan Williams: Tequila.

Emily Compagno: -- tequila. So, just get, like, a bourbon.


Juan Williams: And by the way, if you like tequila, it's actually very good.

Emily Compagno: Oh.

Juan Williams: But I think Ryan Reynolds deserves all the credit in the world because he's been very smart to capitalize on this in order to promote his gin. And I can't [unintelligible] for that gin.

Dana Perino: He's, like, drafting off of Peloton.

Greg Gutfeld: Exactly.




A cycling term.

Juan Williams: Yeah.

Jesse Watters: I know.

Dana Perino: Thank you.

Emily Compagno: Oh.

Dana Perino: I'll be here all week.

Emily Compagno: Okay. We told you about the banana duck taped to a wall. That artwork sold for an astounding $120,000. But then someone got hungry and a performance artist ate the infamous banana, and later said he was not sorry at all and that eating the banana was his own, eating the banana was his own work of art.

Dana Perino: Good for him.

Emily Compagno: Juan, what do you think? Priceless performance art? Or just annoying?

Juan Williams: I think, I think this act -- and claiming that it's art is as silly as the piece, which is ridiculous, and it's just an expression of excess, that people have too much money and a lack of good sense.

Emily Compagno: Because of the good economy.

Juan Williams: That wasn't art.

Emily Compagno: Thriving economy, too much money. Jesse?

Jesse Watters: Juan's wrong, as usual. This performance artist hit the nail on the head. You can be a performance artist and pretty much do anything. If you get arrested, you can say, "It's performance art. First amendment. You can't touch me." And that gives me a great idea.


Dana Perino: Or a defense.

Jesse Watters: Or a defense.


Dana Perino: Okay, look. Not too long ago at a auction house here, there was a bag of kitty litter up against a wall and then a sign above it that says $20,000. That's how absurd all of this stuff is.

Jesse Watters: Wow.

Emily Compagno: Did you buy it?

Dana Perino: No.



Greg Gutfeld: If you want to -- I mean, performance -- to your point, anything could be performance art. Google yams and performance art.

Dana Perino: Oh no.

Greg Gutfeld: And then don't blame me for that.

Dana Perino: Don't.

Greg Gutfeld: Do you know that one guy took his grant money, which was $20,000, right? For art. And then he made it in a stack, put it in a sack and sold it for $21,000.


So, I mean, this is -- there is worse art than this. By the way, I don't think this is real. I think all of this is, like, this has been created specifically for a performance art piece.


Juan Williams: No, it was created for The Five.

Emily Compagno: Yeah. I've got to conclude this performance art. OK. The Santa is really dreaming of a white Christmas. Walmart is now apologizing and making cocaine Santa branded sweaters, which shows jolly old St. Nick about to engage in some questionable and illegal holiday behavior. Juan would you wear this for four hundred bucks?

Juan Williams: This is so sad. I mean, how what how corrupt? How can people put this out, not have a sense that this is not in the Christmas spirit? This is crude and rude and also offensive.

Greg Gutfeld: You know what though? How else do you expect Santa to deliver all those presents?

Jesse Watters: I'm up with all night. What the hell? But Juan's right there you know what this is? This is the side of hipster humor that the hipsters just don't know who any kids. Oh, this is great pretty funny ironic humor, but they go. Then the kid comes up he goes, what's cocaine?

Juan Williams: Oh God.

Jesse Watters: They should have sent this to Urban Outfitters not Walmart. They shipped it to the wrong store.

Dana Perino Wait the only cocaine sweater I would wear is a cocaine Mitch one.

Jesse Watters: Oh. Dana, great. Three for three.

Emily Compagno: One more thing. Up next.

Jesse Watters: You know how they have crazy service animals like dogs and parakeet.

Greg Gutfeld: Yes.

Jesse Watters: Stupid stuff like dogs and crazy and you can register a dog as a service dog, but you know, it's getting out of hand like squirrels and stuff. This guy in Arizona.

Greg Gutfeld: Yeah.

Jesse Watters: Keller registered a beehive Greg registered a beehive as a service animal. I don't think it's going to go over too well, but I think he just wanted to make the point that this is all getting ridiculous and maybe created a little buzz about it while he was at it. That's it.

Juan Williams: Yeah anyway, let's go to the next one, Dana.

Dana Perino: OK. So, this weekend was a 68th Miss Universe competition and you might've missed it. It was 2015 remember, Steve Harvey announced the national costume winner at much less...


Steve Harvey: The winner Philippines. Yes.

Pia Wurtzbach: It's not Philippines, it's Malaysia.

Steve Harvey: OK. Well, let me explain some to you. I just read that in the teleprompter y'all going to quit doing this to me.


Jesse Watters: Wait. What?

Dana Perino: OK so in 2015, he announced the wrong winner and then this time he said in a teleprompter they had the wrong thing. And Steve Harvey is hilarious. You also have to Google when he asks the winner the question about climate change and watch him he's hilarious, that's pretty funny. But the winner was South Africa's Zozibini Tunzi. Zozibini Tunzi and she is absolutely gorgeous.

Juan Williams: I like his jacket.

Greg Gutfeld: I'm tired.

Dana Perino: I love Steve Harvey. I think he's the most real guy right there Jesse.

Jesse Watters: Thank you he's our Steve Harvey. All right.

Juan Williams: That's great.

Jesse Watters: Let's do this thank you. Usually I do a little preamble, but, you know, all I'm going to say is you can't get anything better than a sugar glider gliding through the air. Just watch this. It's amazing.

Emily Compagno: Oh, cute you can do it.

Jesse Watters: Isn't that amazing. Like wouldn't you want that pet in your house just flying around.

Juan Williams: What's a sugar glider?

Greg Gutfeld: Sugar gliders, I guess. Well, you know, it's a rodent. That's all I know. It's a rodent with. Go outside. You'll see him on the street. All right. That's enough. I think we've done enough. Thank you, Emily, for ruining my whole day. All right, Juan.

Juan Williams: All right. The parents of a deaf British baby have created a worldwide sensation and a waterfall of tears with this video. Take a look. That's Georgina. She's four months old. She was diagnosed as severely deaf in September. So she recently got her first hearing aid. Now, each morning, her parents turn on the hearing aid to talk to her. Watch how Georgina reacts to her mom's voice when she turns on the hearing aid.

[begin clip].

Female Speaker: Can you say hello? It's a very loud hello. [baby sounds].

[end clip]

Juan Williams: Viewed this heartwarming video, so many Christmas blessings around Merry Christmas, Georgina.

Greg Gutfeld: All right. Emily, do you have anything adorable animal like or cute babies do you have babies?

Emily Compagno: Ummm.

Jesse Watters: No.

Emily Compagno: I have the top three things. So, you guys check out this Christmas shopping experience that was totally wonderful, which is in the Slidell police department of the Slidell police department in Louisiana. So, this good girl Misfit, the police horse, made it onto the nice list this year and so her handler, Officer Robert “Mongo” Crowell took her to Pet Smart to shop. So cute. That's like what I do with Duchess. I take her to the pet store and then I let her choose. I say you can choose one. And then she eats out of the buffet. And then we go outside, and I leave her right there and then I pay for it.

Greg Gutfeld: What's his favorite aisle in the store?

Juan Williams: Hey. Hey, I thought you had a good joke.

Jesse Watters: I did it.

Juan Williams: What did she get?

Emily Compagno: I don't know.

Greg Gutfeld: Oh. Why didn't you do your research, Emily? All of us do our hard jobs on these humble things and you just dropped the ball. And frankly, I'm tired of it. And obstruction. I would take that horse to Black Friday with me. You know --

Emily Compagno: Why?

Greg Gutfeld: As defense.

Juan Williams: It clear the place out.

Jesse Watters: Yeah ride it right down the aisle and snatch up a flat screen.

Emily Compagno: My dream is to get you on a horse.

Juan Williams: I think it would be a little bit --

Jesse Watters: If I get on a horse, I get right off.

Juan Williams: I think it would be like cIean-up on aisle five.

Greg Gutfeld: Here we are. Never miss an episode of "The Five." "Special Report" is up next. Hello, Bret.

Bret Baier: I clean up on aisle five every night.


Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.