Kavanaugh denies assault allegations in Fox News interview

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," September 24, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Jesse Watters along with Judge Jeanine Pirro, Juan Williams, Lisa Boothe, and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City, and this is "The Five."

Brett Kavanaugh firing back against sexual misconduct allegations in an exclusive interview with Fox News, you'll hear from him in just a moment. But first, we want to get you caught up, the Supreme Court nominee blasting what he's calling a last minute character assassination while adding he won't be smeared and intimidated into withdrawing. This comes as a second accuser has come forward accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during a party when they were students at Yale. The woman identified as Debbie Ramirez is admitting to the New Yorker that she's not certain it was Kavanaugh at first and acknowledges there are gaps in her memory of the evening because she was drinking. Ronan Farrow who co-wrote the piece about the second accuser explains more about her uncorroborated claims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: At first she wasn't sure this was Kavanaugh, when you first came to her last week. And then you write after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney she did became confident that it was him.

(CROSSTALK)

RONAN FARROW, THE NEW YORKER: And, George, I would say that that's extremely typical of these stories when you're dealing with trauma, alcohol, many years in between. I think that the more cautious witnesses that I've dealt with in cases like this, very frequently say I want to take time to decide, I want to talk to other people involved. I want to search myself and make sure that I can affirmatively stand by these claims.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Farrow also causing controversy when explaining why Ms. Ramirez decided to speak out now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FARROW: She came forward because senate Democrats began looking at this claim. She didn't not flag this for those Democrats. This came to her -- to the attention of people on the hill independently. And it's really cornered her to an awkward position. That's why she took time to think about this carefully. You know, she said point blank, I don't want to ruin anyone's life, but she feels this is a serious claim, you know, she considers her own memories credible, and she felt it was important that she tell her story before others did without her consent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Here's what Brett Kavanaugh told Martha about this accusation in her exclusive interview airing tonight:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: The truth is I've never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place. But what I know is I've never sexual assaulted anyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: OK. Judge, what do you think about the process with which this woman's story came out? So, she's reached by senate Democrat staffers and then, I believe, maybe she's coached or massaged by lawyers and Democrat activists into remembering what she believes was a sexual misconduct situation about 35 years ago, is that -- does that strike you as strange at all?

JEANINE PIRRO, CO-HOST: You know what strikes me at strange that you have Ronan Farrow who had a pretty good reputation, who now comes out and says, well, you know, based on my experience it's not unusual to see what's happened. Ronan, you're wrong. Based on my experience, 35 years in law enforcement, creating a sex crimes unit, trying rape cases, listening to complaints, you don't have someone say I need six days to figure out who it was, and then needs to consult with their attorney. They usually at that point if they believe that there was some kind of sexual assault or misconduct, they know who did it. And the six days are to decide whether or not they want to go out and tell the story. She says she came out with this because she wanted to tell her story before someone else does. Here's the bottomline, if you can't even find a corroborating witness to confirm what you're alleging occurred with Judge Kavanaugh, well then who else are you worried about telling your story because there is no story. But I can start with due process if that's what you want. It's nowhere near these delayed Democrat complaints.

WATTERS: So, Juan, if you have no witnesses to the alleged misconduct and then you were calling around some of your friends back at Yale on the phone and saying, you know what? It may have been Kavanaugh, it may not have been Kavanaugh. Do you think it was Kavanaugh? I can't quite remember. And then another female associate of hers, her best friend said she never told me anything about this. Does this tell you that maybe she might not have it exactly right about specifically Kavanaugh?

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Yeah, it does. I think that she's saying of her own volition that she wants to be sure. That she thinks it's such a serious allegation that she took time and that she is putting all of your doubts out in public. She's not trying to say, oh, I'm certain when she's not certain. She's saying I'm not clearly certain. I was drinking.

WATTERS: OK.

WILLIAMS: So I think that's pretty straightforward. Now, Ronan Farrow says that he considers what he did a high level of evidence. Here I'm quoting, and say that direct account from people who told -- who she told right afterward that this had happened with Kavanaugh. That's what Ronan Farrow says. So he says he applied that standard in another story that he's done with similar instances of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. He says this is proven to be ironclad and a good way to do it. So he considers it a high standard of journalism.

WATTERS: I didn't know that that's the way he went about it. I thought it was -- he found someone that had heard something like that had happened. Not that this woman had told a friend about it afterwards.

LISA BOOTHE, GUEST CO-HOST: Well, also the New York piece says that they have not confirmed with any other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The New York Times -- present at the party. New York Times reached out to several dozen individuals trying to corroborate the story could not, even reported that Ramirez herself was calling people asking if they could recall this incident from happening. Juan, I think it's pretty clear to everyone what is going on now. Look, the Me Too Movement has created this environment where we are coerced to simply believe a woman because of her gender. Democrats are taking advantage, manipulating that environment, and now weaponising these uncorroborated accusations as a political tool to clobber Judge Kavanaugh with. And it's disingenuous and it's dangerous. And quite frankly, the New Yorker should be ashamed that they ever ran this story to begin with.

WATTERS: So, Greg, if you look back on the weekend, one of the alleged witnesses with Dr. Ford, female, good friend, came out and said I never heard of this. Not sure about the party. Don't know anything about this. And then you have a second alleged victim come out. What does the pattern telling you right now?

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Well, I thought -- I mean, Dianne Feinstein could run an airline with that kind of timing.

(LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: Because it was perfectly timed. You have a long-time friend and fourth person mentioned in the story has no recollection. Boom. That was like Saturday. Sunday you had the new accusation. What worries me, in the big picture, we're shifting the meaning of the word corroboration before an accusation would require corroboration, which meant, you know, witnesses and evidence which the Ford case seemed to lack, and now this other one actually seems weaker than Ford. So now you corroborate one allegation with what? Another allegation. So what happens is the media is less inclined to actually dive deep into the story. Instead just pile -- well, it must have happened because now it's quantity not quality.

PIRRO: There's an additional point. I have never seen anything like this in my career over three decades. I've never seen so many repressed memory cases in my life, especially against one guy.

GUTFELD: Yeah.

PIRRO: So the question is, if there's something awry going on, was there hypnosis? Are they using confabulation? I don't want to get into the weeds here. But, you know what? This is the kind of thing where they have a right to true cross examination. But the Democrats don't want true cross examination because they want Kavanaugh to go first. How does the defendant or the accused go first when he doesn't know what the accusation is? How is it the defendant able to rebut and present a defense when the complaining witness doesn't give a bill of particulars as to what happened? I mean this is so backwards. It is so obviously an attempt.

WILLIAMS: Let's go with what you're saying.

PIRRO: Good.

WILLIAMS: Let's have the FBI.

BOOTHE: I think she's OK with that.

WILLIAMS: Let's have the FBI come in and say here is a fact basis that we can all agree on. And that's what they're calling for.

PIRRO: OK. So let me ask you this, Juan.

WILLIAMS: No, let me just say. You have a situation here where you just described, judge, that one set of facts coming from one person, another set of facts from another.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: She says the party occurred. He says I wasn't at that party. He says I don't even know when the party was. How can he deny that he's at a party that she hasn't identified?

PIRRO: Well, first of all, let me explain something. When she says something, he has the right to know specifically what it is.

WILLIAMS: OK.

PIRRO: But in the end, there is no way you can even consider bringing in the FBI. And my question to you is a very simple one. Everybody is talking about let's bring in the FBI, well, why the hell haven't you asked the FBI to get involved? Why did Dianne Feinstein sit on this for six weeks? Why did she sit on it for 36 years?

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: She was not. They knew who she was.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no, she was anonymous. And here's the thing, this response is something you were asking about, Jesse. I think, in this case, when somebody is being nominated for the Supreme Court, and suddenly you have all the world's eyeballs fixed on this guy. Now they're going to fly speck him. I don't care who you are. That's a fact. And so suddenly a lot of people who knew him, a lot of people had questions. Remember, in the second case, that woman wasn't coming forward, the woman at Yale.

PIRRO: How did they find her?

WILLIAMS: The Democrat heard stories about.

(CROSSTALK) PIRRO: Here's the corroborating witness who can confirm the story that they say they heard from someone. Who is this someone?

WILLIAMS: I'm with you, judge. Let's bring in the FBI in.

PIRRO: No. FBI doesn't do these cases. And that's why they haven't answered the FBI.

WILLIAMS: I'll tell you what's really interesting going on today.

PIRRO: No, what's interesting is this is all confusion and all.

WILLIAMS: No, no. What's interesting is that Martha MacCallum, tonight, is going to have Kavanaugh and his wife on her show. To me, this is like wow. You mean a guy who's up for a Supreme Court nomination decides it's important to take a break and do TV?

WATTERS: I think he's trying to defend himself.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: Wait, wait, wait. You can't smear a guy from trying to defend himself. There's no due process?

WILLIAMS: What I'm saying is -- no, what I'm saying is, boy, did you see the Fox poll? The Fox poll indicates now more people believe Ford than believe Kavanaugh.

GUTFELD: What a surprise after what has been done to him. Look, if allegations are enough without witness or without evidence is you should worry about your husbands, again your brothers, your sons, and your fathers.

PIRRO: And yourself.

GUTFELD: Yes. And there needs to be a new woman movement called the momma bear because they're coming for your sons.

BOOTHE: Would you be part of it if you're not a mom?

(LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: By the way, you know what's going to happen is.

PIRRO: Don't exclude me, Greg.

GUTFELD: You know what's funny. You know what's going to happen? Because you can't nominate men anymore? You know who's going to be the Supreme Court justice?

WATTERS: Oh.

GUTFELD: Judge Pirro. You're next.

PIRRO: No, not a chance. Let me tell you, all I'd like to do is question the two of them. That's all I want to do.

WATTERS: All right. More proof that the facts on Kavanaugh don't matter to Democrats, the latest left wing smear ahead. Plus, Martha MacCallum joins us to preview her exclusive interview with Brett Kavanaugh and his wife.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who is Dr. Ford's life-long friend has said she doesn't know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denying allegations against him in an exclusive Fox News interview. While, at least, one senate Democrat appears to admit that the facts don't matter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn't Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D), HAWAII: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases. He has an ideological agenda as very outcome-driven.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It sounds to me like you're saying because you don't trust him on policy and because you don't believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you don't believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982. Is that fair?

HIRONO: This is why it is so important that there be an investigation so that there's some effort at collaboration.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PIRRO: Greg, effort at collaboration. I think it's called corroboration.

GUTFELD: Yes, there you go.

PIRRO: But I'll let that one go.

GUTFELD: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: Listen, I haven't asked the question yet. You've got this senator saying that she doesn't believe him in the context of this decision.

GUTFELD: Right.

PIRRO: What is she trying to tell us?

GUTFELD: Well, the mask dropped there because she's putting denial in context means that she doesn't -- he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because of his politics or his potential policies. For example, if I said I was -- I mean, it would be like me saying I'm skeptical of progressive feminism so I don't think a progressive feminist should get due process. That's nut. It's scary how political warfare is redefining how we interact with each other. We're not -- we're not one people anymore. We are now tribes. And this is not going to end well. It's not going to be Republicans versus Democrats, or men versus women, it's going to be everyone for themselves because accusations and allegations require no proof, no evidence. That means I can do it to anybody I want.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. But we used to live in a country where, you know what? We were Americans and you could, in fact, go to the court and get a fair hearing.

PIRRO: But we also.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: In this case, Orrin Hatch already said forget about it. I don't care what she has -- I know.

PIRRO: I don't know if he said I don't care.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, he did. That's what Orrin Hatch said.

PIRRO: He said he's going to vote on it. But let me ask you this, Lisa, in a he said-she said, does anyone win? And then how do you -- you know, the scales of justice are like this. Preponderance of the evidence is slight. Beyond a reasonable doubt is like that. That's the world that I've dealt in. Now, it's like not even preponderance of the evidence. If it's equal and he said and she said, she wins.

BOOTHE: Well, of course. I mean, we set up this hostile environment for men with the Me Too Movement. We also used to live in a world, Juan, where you have the presumption of innocence. And Senator Hirono basically admitted that she's not -- she's denying Judge Kavanaugh that -- simply because she disagreed with his judicial philosophy. But in all honesty, she's the only Democrat that's being honest here. She also basically admitted that she's anti-men because she said men should just shut up as well. She's fundraising off this as well. So, at least, she's the only one that showing what the Democrats' cards here that it is political. They've been trying to take down Judge Kavanaugh from the very beginning. And now they are essentially weaponising allegations that have not been corroborated to try to do that.

WILLIAMS: Well, the other side to that is Republicans are trying to push through Judge Kavanaugh. And you have President Trump tweeting, you know, let's forget about whatever this woman had to say. And you have people now like Susan Collins saying I'm appalled that the president would say such a thing about a woman who has a serious charge.

PIRRO: Can you deny, Juan, can you deny that we were right at the 11th hour? It was about to go for a vote. And they now say -- they come up with this woman who doesn't know anything, doesn't have a corroborating witness. Says she can't fly. She's got to drive across the country. And now, the second delay is the -- come on. I mean, how much of a delay? We've got to go to the FBI. Why doesn't someone go to FBI? I've been listening to this for three weeks. Go, get it done.

WILLIAMS: Wait. I thought you were saying that you oppose the FBI looking at this?

PIRRO: That's because they won't look at it. They don't do local crimes.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no.

PIRRO: They don't do sex crimes.

WILLIAMS: Excuse me. They do Supreme Court nominees.

PIRRO: They do background checks if you're over 18.

WILLIAMS: OK. So this is a background check.

PIRRO: They did six of them. They didn't know about this woman. And if the Dems -- if the Dems found this woman, OK, and they have to go. They found the second one, Ramirez, why didn't the FBI find her in the six background checks?

WILLIAMS: Well, remember with the Anita Hill case, again, the Democrats were the ones.

PIRRO: Jesse.

WILLIAMS: . who kind of forced her out into public.

PIRRO: I've got to get you opinion.

WATTERS: You're the voice of reason, I think, needs to step in here. But I will only say this, if you go to a party with your best friend and it's a house party and something happens, and you don't tell your best friend about it afterwards. And then the person, your best friend, who you say was at the party where this incident happened says I was never at this party and I don't even know Brett Kavanaugh, and I've never even really met Brett Kavanaugh. And everybody else that you name was at the party has never met you or doesn't know you or doesn't know anything about this party, doesn't that make your story a little bit suspicious? And then, you bring on to your legal team Andrew McCabe's lawyer. What does that say about how politicized this has gotten?

PIRRO: You are a reasonable man.

WATTERS: The Democrats has completely destroyed this confirmation process.

PIRRO: . who can sit on any jury on any case. What will happen when Trump and Rod Rosenstein meets face to face this week? The president explains next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Welcome back. We're going to have more of Martha MacCallum's exclusive interview with Brett Kavanaugh in a moment. But, first, some other very big news today, Rod Rosenstein set to meet with President Trump on Thursday. After a day of wild speculation as to whether he will resign or be fired. The president addressing it earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We'll be meeting at the White House, and we'll be determining what's going on. We want to have transparency. We want to have openness. And I look forward to meeting with Rod at that time.

(END VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: Rosenstein facing intense scrutiny over a stunning report on Friday that he suggested secretly recording the president. He talked about apparently invoking the 25th amendment to try to remove Trump from office. Rosenstein has denied those claims. Judge, what do you make of it?

PIRRO: I've got to tell you. You know, this guy, Rosenstein, you know, it doesn't matter. To me, the New York Times article really doesn't matter, Juan, because the first time I heard that he wrote the memo telling the president all the reasons why Comey should be fired, and now is in charge of the investigation that includes as part of it that the president may have obstructed justice in the firing of Comey. Once I found out that Rosenstein had signed one of the FISA applications and one of the recurring applications which required additional information. And then you find out that Rosenstein when he appears before congress has this smug look like, yeah, we'll get you the reports. We're working on it. We're working on it. Then all the reports are redacted. I say to myself, self, what is this guy doing controlling this investigation? He should be fired. But now, I don't want him fired. I don't want him fired.

WILLIAMS: OK.

PIRRO: I don't want the president firing him. I want the memos to come out. I think that there's something in the memo.

BOOTHE: But Rod Rosenstein is also the guy that laid out the case for firing James Comey, and then appoint a special counsel to look into things like potential obstruction of justice, and that is, kind of, questionable to -- that's questionable in itself. But I would say that -- there's been article and, you know, discussion that perhaps he was joking and -- with the New York Times article, but I would say does it really matter? I think the bigger problem is the fact that it could potentially be true. I mean, if you look at things like the New York Times op-ed. You look at the FBI text messages about stopping President Trump. You look at the fact that the FBI used the Democrat opposition research to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page. So I think it's troubling that it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Rosenstein to be telling the truth, and it's not have been a joke.

WILLIAMS: So. Jesse, today, Rod Rosenstein met with John Kelly, the chief of staff, as he was going over to the White House, the thought was he's going to be fired. And then came the report, oh, maybe he's not going to be fired, but he's going to resign and is to prevent himself from being fired. Then they have a meeting and now we hear, no, it's simply going to be a meeting on Thursday with Trump. What's going on?

WATTERS: Thursday is going to be a big day. I can't wait until Thursday. I honestly don't know what's going on. I don't think anybody knows. I don't know if he got set up by McCabe. I don't know if he got set up by the White House. I don't know if he got set up by someone that wants to set a trap for the president to fire Rosenstein. I don't know. But I do know this. Rosenstein is not a good faith actor. He's been playing this Game of Throne stuff with the White House and everybody for quite some time. When you play that game, sometimes you get knifed. Let's remember, he signed all these FISA warrants. He was the one that oversaw the firing of James Comey. Then he oversaw the obstruction case about the firing of James Comey. Total conflict of interest. And he's not giving any document that the house judiciary committee wants. So, he's been stonewalling throughout the last year and a half. It's time for him to go. And if he does go, the next person in succession, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who seems like a real straight shooter. He's been very critical of James Comey for giving Hillary Clinton the kid glove treatment. And I have a lot of respect for this guy. And if Rosenstein does get dropped then this guy, I think, is a good replacement for the time being.

WILLIAMS: So, Gregory, apparently, the president was polling his staff on Friday, where they're going back and forth, traveling to Missouri, to whether or not he should fire.

GUTFELD: Yes.

WILLIAMS: . Rod Rosenstein. What do you say?

GUTFELD: That's normal. A CEO often asks his staff for questions about stuff. That's what bosses do. It's a normal behavior.

I'm with the judge, though. I don't think he should be fired. And let me -- I have a different reason for it. I think whether he's joking or not is really important from my perspective. As someone whose life is regularly punctuated by events where I have to explain to people, "Honey, I was just being sarcastic," I have to defend Rod on this one.

Because the thing is, the possibility that his comments were sarcastic, that could be said about everything that Trump says. People get really upset about Trump, because they took him literally when he was just making a joke. So the same thing is now happening to Rosenstein -- Rosensteen, whichever.

WATTERS: Which is it? Rosensteen or Rosenstein?

BOOTHE: That's a good question.

GUTFELD: But the point is -- but the bottom line is this. People who condemn anonymous sourcing of The Times op-ed, now embrace this anonymous sourcing are being hypocrites. I say it was likely a sarcastic remark, because I'm -- I'm a guy who makes sarcastic remarks.

PIRRO: Yes, but what context? What context?

WILLIAMS: Yes, but you know what? There's no evidence --

PIRRO: We need to have that comment: "What do you want me to do, tape him?"

GUTFELD: Have you ever said something like that to a spouse: "What do you want me to do --" And you say this thing that you didn't mean, and then you have to go buy flowers.

BOOTHE: Sounds like there's a lot of experience here.

GUTFELD: No, there is. Believe me. If you're a sarcastic person, you should always side with the excuse that it was a joke, because it always is a joke.

WILLIAMS: Well, you know what's incredible, is I generally don't agree with these guys, but I think I agree with this for a different reason. I don't think there's any evidence to say that he actually did anything.

PIRRO: Oh!

WATTERS: Rod Rosensteen! I know I'm right.

WILLIAMS: Brett Kavanaugh is speaking out against sexual assault allegations in an exclusive FOX News interview with Martha MacCallum. Martha is here next with a preview.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOOTHE: Welcome back. In an exclusive interview airing tonight on "The Story," Brett Kavanaugh and his wife, Ashley, sit down with Martha MacCallum to address decades' old nomination of sexual misconduct against the Supreme Court nominee. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: We're talking about an allegation of sexual assault. I've never sexual assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter. And the girls from the schools I went to and I were friends.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS: So you're saying that all -- through all these years that are in question, you were a virgin?

KAVANAUGH: That's correct.

MACCALLUM: Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school?

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

MACCALLUM: And through what years of college, since we're probing into your personal life.

KAVANAUGH: Many years -- many years after. I'll leave it at that. Many years after.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOOTHE: Wow! Wow. All right. Well, that entire interview airs at 7 p.m. Eastern tonight here on FOX News. And Martha joins us live from Washington, D.C.

Hi, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Hi, Lisa.

BOOTHE: I'm looking forward to this interview. I have no doubt that it's going to be phenomenal.

So Martha, my question to you is, look, this is kind of a risky strategy for him and his wife to sit down with you, especially ahead of Thursday's hearing. Democrats are looking for anything to use against him, anything he says to use against him. What's the strategy behind him sitting down and agreeing to it?

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BOOTHE: Do you know why he did the interview?

MACCALLUM: You know what? That was my first question to them. I wanted to know what prompted them to speak out prior to Thursday's hearing. And you know, I really -- he said he wanted to clear his name, which he said, you know, many times, and he looks forward to doing that on Thursday in the hearing, if indeed it happens on Thursday, which I feel everyone feels there could be some twists and turns before that.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was sort of an effort to kind of, you know, kick the tires and get the tough questions and go through it and see how he stands up. Because we literally asked him every single allegation. I mean, we did not hold back in terms of the detail and the graphic nature of these allegations against him. And I wanted to hear his answers. I wanted to ask him those questions in front of his wife.

I asked her, you know, "Did you ever become doubtful or angry when all these allegations came forward? Did you ever look at him and wonder?" And she says she did not, that she has never wavered in her support and that she believes that these allegations are lies.

BOOTHE: Wow. All right. Well, we're going to take it around the horn. Jesse.

WATTERS: I'm just kind of still reeling from the sound bite we played at the top there, Martha. You know, the Democrats have played the race card, the gender card. And he's now playing the "V" card. He is a virgin. And that's the defense he's going with. And was a virgin until, I guess, his you know, early to mid-20s.

What kind of impact do you think that will have on this debate we're having in this country? Do you think he's going to get teased now by the left?

MACCALLUM: Probably.

WATTERS: Or are they going to say -- how do you think this is going to play out?

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, I thought it was probably a very difficult thing for him to say. My guess is that it may have come up in, you know, preparation and the discussions that he has had about all of this. In his defense of himself, he probably said, "Look, you know, I didn't sleep with anyone."

And he wanted to make that point today, which I thought was very interesting. It doesn't necessarily, you know, go fly in the face of some of these allegations, which fall short of that.

WATTERS: That's true.

MACCALLUM: But it does, you know, continue to paint the picture of him as someone who was very much on the straight and narrow.

So, yes, I think he's probably going to get some ribbing for it. I think he feels like it's something that he wanted to be honest about and he wanted out there; and he obviously feels like it speaks in his favor.

Juan.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think that the -- it's pretty clear why he talked to you, Martha. I think it's these polls, the FOX polls that clearly show there are fewer and fewer people who think he should be confirmed and who even believe him. More people believe Professor Ford than believe Judge Kavanaugh.

So to my mind, the key issue is here how did you, Martha MacCallum, react? Did you come away from it feeling, "You know what? I think this guy is bearing his soul"? Or did you think, "Well, this is a political step being taken by someone who knows that he is losing political support, especially among suburban women"?

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, it's clear that he believes that he did not do anything along the lines of these accusations.

And I pressed him. I said, you know, "Did you -- is it possible that you had, you know, a physical interaction with Christine Blasey Ford, that she misunderstood or that -- ? Were you ever so drunk that you forgot what happened one night?" Because he admits in the interview that, you know, they were all drinking, that there were nights when they drank too much. I said, "Did you ever drink so much that you forgot what happened?"

And he says no. So I came away believing that he believes that he never did anything along the lines of what he's being accused of.

And I also went into the Michael Avenatti claims, which are, you know, really, egregious, as well, and he claims that he was never at a party where anything along those lines happened.

So he's really far out on a limb here in saying, you know, unequivocally that these things didn't happen. He's not saying, you know, "I had a relationship with this woman, and maybe she misunderstood." Or anything like that. He's saying absolutely not. So I mean, as a reporter, I'm listening to what he's saying. I'm taking it in, and we weigh it against the evidence on the other side.

Judge.

PIRRO: You know, Martha, a lot of times jurors, when they listen to witnesses or the accused, they are more focused on their visceral reaction to the individual, as opposed to, you know, the testimony itself. And we haven't seen Dr. Ford yet.

But two questions. Your visceral reaction to Kavanaugh, being closer to him than just a television camera? And then No. 2, what shocked you the most or surprised you the most about his answers?

MACCALLUM: You know, I think that he is obviously -- this has really been hard on the two of them. I think he's very nervous, very pent up about all of this. And you can just imagine what this is like. You know, when you go to bed at night, and the two of you are there alone and you're thinking about what you're going through with all of this, regardless of where everything lies. It has to be absolutely devastating.

So, you know, I walked away feeling that he is a person who believes in his convictions, and he believes that he's innocent. She clearly believes that he's innocent.

She is sort of, you know, a calmer center, and she definitely believes that he is innocent.

You know, what surprised me, I think that the virgin comments surprised me, because I think that he is willing to kind of bare the sort of -- the innermost secrets to clear his name.

And it also surprised me that there was no nuance. There was no sort of -- I asked him, "You know, do you think" -- this is a hard question to answer. But I asked him, "Do you think that, separately from your experience, a teenager, someone who is 17 should be held responsible for what they do the rest of their life?"

And he said, you know, "I really can't say. I've, you know, led a good life."

I said, "No, but if it wasn't you. And, you know, you're the judge. And you're looking at someone 17 and younger, should they be held responsible for their actions?" He would not answer that specifically.

And I think when you think about it, you know, you're sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't with that question. If you say yes, you're culpable for what you did prior to 17, you know, then the headline becomes Judge Kavanaugh says that it's OK, that nothing is off-limits.

And if you say you are not, then the headline becomes, "He thinks everything you do before 17 is OK."

BOOTHE: Right.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, that surprised me.

BOOTHE: And I want to get Greg in here, as well.

GUTFELD: Yes, the permanent record is actually -- remember, you used to be threatened: "It's on your permanent record"? It exists.

MACCALLUM: "It's in your file."

GUTFELD: Yes. You know, you brought up Avenatti. And I don't know if the judge wants to respond to this. Or you, Martha. But how -- I saw those tweets. And they're -- what he's suggesting is grotesque. He's suggesting gang rape. How can someone put that forth without evidence? I mean, I would assume the bar association would be all over this. Or I mean, how can he do that? I don't -- it blows my mind that this --

MACCALLUM: Jeanine can probably answer that side of it, but I can tell you that I asked him about that very specifically, and he was emphatic that he would -- had never been anywhere where anything like that was going on.

I said, "What about, you know, sort of things that were happening behind closed doors at parties that you were maybe aware or maybe should have been aware of that seemed more innocent than they're described in these tweets?" And he claimed that he had never been at any event where anything like that happened.

Now Michael Avenatti says that he has witnesses, and that they have specific allegations and specific facts that they can attribute him being there to. So we'll see.

PIRRO: Yes. OK, quickly, this kind of thing should go before the grievance committee. I've sat on them, both for attorneys and for judges.

Second thing, accusing someone of gang rape is slander, per se. And Avenatti ought to be concerned about his law license, if he isn't already, because he's $10 million in debt, based, you know, in taxes and to people from the law firm.

WILLIAMS: Hey, Martha -- Martha, did you ask -- did you Judge Kavanaugh if you thought -- if he thought that Michael Judge, his friend, who keeps writing, he's written about these --

GUTFELD: Mark Judge.

WILLIAMS: Mark Judge. All these drunken --

GUTFELD: Mike judge is somebody else.

WILLIAMS: -- in high school. Did you ask him if -- if he thought that Judge should testify or come before the Senate?

MACCALLUM: Yes, you know, he basically said that everyone in his life had corroborated his story. He didn't answer whether or not he should come before the -- before the court [SIC].

But I did ask him about the other guy who just came out, Roche, who basically was his roommate at Yale and said that he found these stories to be credible. That he didn't have firsthand evidence but that it didn't surprise him that these things would happen.

And Kavanaugh's interest -- answer is very interesting on that one. So stay tuned for that tonight.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Martha.

BOOTHE: Martha, we will all be watching tonight. So thank you for being with us today.

MACCALLUM: Thanks, guys. Good to see you.

BOOTHE: Good to see you, too.

Well, more of "The Five" coming up next. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: Anyway, we're going to do some final thoughts here. My final thoughts are -- I will say this until I'm in a pine box -- innocent until proven guilty. And if we let that thing go, and we start manipulating the language, we're all going to be screwed, everyone at this table, everyone you know, everyone at home. We all live and breathe based on that one point.

And I think from a media standpoint, the worst thing that could happen for the media is to find out that nothing happened. So there you go.

WATTERS: Kind of like Russia collusion. Imagine that. Nothing happened.

This is what I was thinking about, watching that clip with Martha. How would you conduct yourself if you were being smeared and you didn't do it? If you felt you were being smeared by someone in that way?

I would be so angry in Martha's face like this. I would be so angry and so -- so intensely upset about the accusations and upset that it was destroying my family and just vehemently denying.

And he came off to me a little bit -- he came off sad, and he came off a little bit soft-spoken. I understand he has to conduct himself like that because he's a measured guy. And he's going to be on the Supreme Court, we believe.

But I don't know if he's going to -- is he going to be like that at the hearing on Thursday?

PIRRO: Jesse --

WATTERS: I don't know how that's going to play when you're going to have a female who is going to be up there and, you know, she could be very emotional and she could also be very believable.

Thursday is huge. I don't know if that is going to play on Thursday.

PIRRO: Jesse, I wouldn't be surprised if he changes on Thursday. Because then he will be confronted with the specifics of this alleged assault.

Right now, you've got to admit the guy is depressed; he's sad; he's exhausted. I understand from a good source his little girls are very upset about this.

WATTERS: Yes.

PIRRO: The man has led an exemplary life at the citadel of the practice of law, the United States Supreme Court. And now they're bringing him down, or trying to, as a sex offender. I don't know if I'd get out from under a rock.

BOOTHE: See, this is a dangerous world we're living in, because you can have two women in the #MeToo era make accusations with zero evidence, zero corroboration and potentially derail someone's entire career. He's got two daughters and a wife, as well. You don't think that those daughters are hearing about this at school and it's going to change the way they look at their dad?

I think it's dangerous that The New Yorker ever ran a story when they said that they couldn't find someone that had firsthand knowledge that this had happened.

So we're living in a terrifying world, in my opinion.

WATTERS: and I just want to say, I was very open-minded about Ford from last week. I wanted to hear what she had to say, and I was willing to believe what she had to say, if she came through with the facts.

But when you add the second woman and you add this gross stuff that Avenatti is now doing, the timing is totally political and suspicious. And it ruins the original accusation in terms of credibility.

GUTFELD: Juan.

WILLIAMS: Here's the -- here's the real deal to me. Is that you have now Republicans up for midterm elections. I'm talking about Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- Jeff Flake is not up but, I mean, you have people who are very aware of how Republicans will be seen. Do they really want to hear this woman? Or is it the case that you simply want to get her out of way and then solidify a hard-right conservative majority on the court for generations to come?

GUTFELD: I think --

WILLIAMS: Conservatives and Republicans have to play it carefully.

GUTFELD: I think the fact is -- I think -- I think they've been incredibly accommodating.

WILLIAMS: I don't think so.

GUTFELD: But they want a conservative court.

WILLIAMS: What you just said. They want a conservative court.

GUTFELD: They've been very accommodating.

WILLIAMS: Are they going to run over her?

PIRRO: That would be the day a witness tells me when she's coming court. Who does that?

WILLIAMS: She's not accused of a crime.

GUTFELD: "One More Thing" up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: It's time now for "One More Thing." I'll go first. This is one of the best renditions of the national anthem I've ever seen. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALEA EMMA TJANDRAWIDJAJA, 7-YEAR-OLD SINGER: In the land of the free and the home of the brave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: That was 7-year-old Malea Emma. Very well done.

All right, Greg.

GUTFELD: Amazing. All right. This is amazing, too.

GRAPHIC: Greg's Lazy Person's News

GUTFELD: "Greg's Lazy Person's News." You know, I'm so lazy I don't even like to solve puzzles. I like puzzles that can solve themselves.

Like this Rubik's cube, which can actually do it it itself. Either that or it's drunk. It seems to walk like I do when I'm coming home from a bar.

But anyway, it is actually programmed to solve itself. So you can just buy it; you never have to do it. This is my kind of automation. Right about now it seems like it seems like it wants to kill itself, because it has no free will.

WATTERS: Takes a long time for it --

GUTFELD: I know.

Well, you want to talk about Judge Kavanaugh some more?

WATTERS: You probably do.

GUTFELD: It's not over yet. Kidding.

WILLIAMS: It's a big day for me. My new book comes out tomorrow, Tuesday. The title, "What the Hell Do You Have to Lose? Trump's War on Civil Rights."

To celebrate, my daughter made me a cake that looks just like the cover of the book.

WATTERS: Beautiful.

WILLIAMS: And she sent out this message on Facebook showing her cake work and pumping up old dad's book with the message urging people to pre-order a copy.

By the way, the book getting great reviews. I'm so honored. Whether you're a liberal, conservative, black, white, Latino, the book breaks new ground and will have you and your friends deep in conversation about where we're going on race relations today.

WATTERS: All right. Good luck tomorrow.

Go ahead, Judge.

PIRRO: OK. Most dogs who have been abused or neglected can only hope for a home where they'll be fed and cared for. I recently adopted my first rescue poodle, and I couldn't be happier. He's the one who's standing. Now, I suspect Stella couldn't be happier. So -- it's a she, sorry.

But real happiness is when a rescue gets love and attention 24/7 as this 3- month-old puppy did at Borger Regional Communications Center in Texas. Sergeant Squelch, badge number 911, as she's known, will soon be making, again, his debut with dispatchers as they conduct programs -- school programs and community events. Sergeant Squelch isn't just being surrounded by love, he's being overwhelmed by love. So adopt a rescue.

WATTERS: All right. Very nice. Lisa.

BOOTHE: All right. Well, staff at Oldsmar, Florida, celebrated Stephen Bellissimo's 100th birthday. He spent the past 20 years going there at the same booth almost every day, ordering the same thing and staying for several hours. So happy birthday to you, Stephens.

WILLIAMS: One hundred?

WATTERS: A hundred.

WILLIAMS: Man, that's great.

PIRRO: Do you want to live that long?

WILLIAMS: Yes, my parents lived into their 90s, but I'm not sure. Do you think I'd be comfortable or just be cranky?

PIRRO: Well, it depends.

BOOTHE: May be cranky.

WILLIAMS: Lisa, my friend Lisa.

BOOTHE: You know I love you.

WILLIAMS: When I'm 100, I'm going to call you, Lisa.

WATTERS: All right. Set your DVRs, never miss an episode of "The Five." "Special Report" is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.