Megyn Kelly on exclusive interview with Dr. James Mitchell

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," December 16, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

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

Reaction to the Senate Intel committee's report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation methods continued last night with Fox News scoring two very big interviews. First, Rob O'Neil, the navy SEAL who killed Usama bin Laden defended the use of enhanced interrogation, saying the information gathered from those methods directly contributed to the mission that took down the terror leader.


ROB O'NEIL, FORMER NAVY SEAL WHO KILLED BIN LADEN: If you can walk away from the soon as it ends, it's not torture, these are just techniques that can use to find the truth. Find them in a lie and then exploit them.

And so Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave us intelligence alleged to the carry
(ph) alleged of bin Laden and we have him for a long, long time. It is not because we got nicer and we serve the better teeth (ph) because they were using techniques that weren't torture but they were definitely uncomfortable. Like I said, they got him out of his comfort zone.


PERINO: And also last night, Megyn Kelly sat down with the architect behind the CIA enhanced interrogation program, James Mitchell who says waterboarding isn't what broke 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


MEGYN KELLY, THE KELLY FILE SHOW HOST: What was it that finally broke Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

JAMES MITCHELL, INTERROGATED 9/11 MASTERMIND K.S.M.: We felt that waterboarding wasn't particularly effective on him. He is.

KELLY: Was not?

MITCHELL: It was not.

KELLY: So how did you get him to the point where he wound up providing what we're told is very useful information?

MITCHELL: The other EIT's, I don't really want to say which ones they were.


PERINO: Mitchell also described how the release of the report by the Senate Democrats has him fearing for his life.

MITCHELL: How many times in your life have you had a law enforcement official call you up in the middle of the day and say, leave your house immediately. That happened to me a couple of days ago.

KELLY: Do you feel your life is in danger?

MITCHELL: Of course. You have to be cautious and you do feel your life is in danger? I don't mind -- I do not mind giving my life for my country, but I do give mine -- giving my life for a food fight, for political reasons between two groups of people who should be able to work it out like adults.

PERINO: I just want to play one more sound bite from James Mitchell because he talks a little more about that report and what he thinks is actually done to his safety and others.


MITCHELL: This puts everyone at risk. And worse yet, it shows Al-Qaeda and the Al-Qaeda 2.0 folks, ISIL, that we're divided and that we're -- easy targets, that we don't have the will to defeat them, because that's what we know. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told me personally, your country will turn on you, the liberal media will turn on you, the people will grow tired of this, they will turn on you, and when they do, you are gonna be abandoned.


PERINO: And the woman who got that interview, Megyn Kelly, the star of "The Kelly File." Joining us from Washington D.C. Megyn, that interview had everybody talking them last night and wonder if you could just give us your thought and some of the reactions after you sat with him.

KELLY: You know, it was a stunning experience for me, Dana, because we -- originally only plan on having Dr. Mitchell for two blocks of the show, the top two blocks of the show. But, he is the middle of telling us what was it like to water board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and we're thinking -- we have nothing on the agenda that is more important than this tonight, we need to hear this. We need to hear from the man directly who's been accused by Senator Feinstein and his other Democrats in the Senate of being a torturer. And find out who he really is and why he did it. And when you hear him explain it from start to finish, you have such a better feel for why he did it, what -- how he did it, and what was going through his mind and you can only wish that to the Senate Democrats had taken the time to speak with this man before they had issued their report and -- he wasn't -- he wasn't relegated to offering his first thoughts on it on -- the Fox News channel.

PERINO: We're gonna get a chance, everybody's gonna get a chance to ask the question, so I will hold my second one and let Eric go next.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Megyn, I just want you to weigh in that was ravening, (ph) it's fasting, when I heard you were gonna have him on, it was must-see, awesome job you get booking that guy. Here's the question, at one point he said he didn't want to dock -- I'm sorry, Dr. Mitchell, at one point he said he didn't want to be the guy who interrogated. He didn't want to be the water board, but there were something that trigger for him, he felt the time was now -- can you just go through that a little bit so our audience knows exactly what was.

KELLY: That's right. He was a reluctant warrior. I mean, this is a psychologist who was advising the CIA on counter terrorism techniques and what might overcome someone's resistance. And then they came to him and said, we need you to do it and he said, I don't really want to and they said, if not you then who? And he said, he had the images head of the people who were jumping off the World Trade Center faced with the death by fire or jumping to their death. And he thought of the passengers he said on flight -- united flight 93, who gave their lives to protect people in the U.S. Capitol. And he said, if they could risk their lives to safe other Americans, I can do this -- to save other Americans, he said, it was hard, it was emotionally stressful on all of us who participated it. He said, it's nothing we enjoyed, we didn't want to do it, he said, but -- I did it for my country, and he said, I'm not -- I'm not ashamed, I'm proud. He said, the CIA came to me afterwards and they said -- we saved lives.

PERINO: Kimberly?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Yeah. Megyn, you know what struck me is when he said about -- you know, fearing for his life but he would do it again, essentially give his life for his country. But he has no problem with that. But he has a real issue with what he calls this political food fight. The fact that the he was an ever interviewed, they didn't talk to any of the actually interrogators in putting together this very one sided report.

KELLY: Imagine being this guy James Mitchell, he's working for his country
-- not making a lot of dough. He -- advised on counter terrorism techniques then they ask him to bid on a contract to advise the CIA. He does it -- people he made $81 million, he did not make $81 million. And we get into that in tonight's -- in part two. But he goes over there and he does it. And then, suddenly, the Senate Democrats issued this report that he thinks -- basically, told the world who he was. And before you know it, his anonymity is lost, and now he's getting death threats, he said last week, the police called him and said, get out of your house immediately. And he doesn't feel that -- that's something -- a feeling, he knows that no one who was on that committee ever called him to just hear his side of the story, he said, Oh, I know you think it's one sided, it was only Democrats and not Republicans. He says no Republicans, no CIA analysts, nobody who participated in the program got to have their say, got to offer any concepts, any perspective, he pointed out -- Kimberly, that in this report
-- issued by the Democrats, they talk about how there were abuses of -- this program. These analysts were over there and they went too far and others had to report these abuses. He says, they make it sound like I was doing the abuses. He says, actually, I was the one reporting them, but they don't -- they don't mention that in the report.


GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Yeah, I mean -- I guess I have a comment, maybe a question, it seems to me that this conversation, which everybody loves to use that word, about torture, it's really not a debate.
I get the picture that everybody knows that torture is repulsive, but torture can be simultaneously wrong, but also necessary. I mean, we all know that cannibalism is against the law. It's awful, repulsive, unless you're the Donner party, unless it's a last resort. And the fact is last resorts are called, the last resort for that very reason and without a last resort, you do not have a first resort. Because it defines everything that you do, you have to have that final step to know where you can go, that you're exhausted everything possible. I don't get any -- I don't any impression that any of these people are particularly happy about what they're doing.

KELLY: Not at all. When you see him speak, you see what a mild manner -- manner gentleman he seems. I mean, his not like some scary scar face movie type guy. He -- says there was a call of duty and he answered it but, you know, he talks about the techniques and talks about how these detainees, they knew the techniques that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he actually said last night that waterboarding was not what did it for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's not would broke him. He said, he talked about how K.S.M. would count down the waterboarding, because they had a number of seconds that they were allowed to pour the water on these men's faces. And Dr, Mitchell actually thought it was -- they were being too permissive, and the DOJ memo. He shortened the time frame and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed used to basically taunt them during the waterboarding, like counting it down, he knew they could only do 20 seconds, so he would go down with his fingers -- on the numbers as they were doing it. He knew it was time limited. They knew it was time limited, I am not saying it was a joy, but he just offered a new perspective on how it actually went down.


BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: Megyn, I was just reading an article, an interview with Stanley McChrystal, the general in both Iraq and Afghanistan who said that these enhanced interrogation techniques, he was allowed to use them, but he chose not to. He tried a little bit but it didn't work. I guess my question and Greg talks about the last resort, are they convinced that this was the last resort or was another way to do it?

KELLY: I think what he said was, he believed given the timing -- that they were. Because, -- you know, keep in mind -- and that's part of the problem with this report is that it's so -- you know, 20/20 hindsight. Here we are now in 2014, and everybody's willing to pass judgment on these guys.

PERINO: Right.

KELLY: Who were trying to keep us safe as -- you know, within days, weeks and months of the actual 9/11 terrorist attack. He said the reporting of the time that he was getting, this is the CIA analyst, it's not like -- you know, he's just some guy reading it on the blog. The actual intelligence was, we could be facing a nuclear attack, we believe the United States may be subjected to a dirty bomb, and that you guys are the ones who have the extract the information about said attacks from these guys we've gone out and -- captured. I mean, under those circumstances, clearly what you would actually do.

PERINO: Megyn, you have part two coming up tonight and we have a little -- just a tiny snippet of it, if we could play that and get her to react.


MITCHELL: They tried to decapitate us the last time, they tried to destroy our civilization and people were clamoring to do everything and anything they could that was legal, to take it right up to the line and save American lives. Because, that's what our government is supposed to do. Save American lives.


PERINO: What is part two like tonight Megyn, for people that want to tune in?

KELLY: I think -- I asked him about some of the criticisms of him in the Senate intelligence report, because they go after him and they really try to diminish him and undermine him, so he gets his chance to respond to that. But I think the most compelling part of the interview is where I asked him, whether it was torture, he answers, and then I asked him, did it feel like torture when you were doing it? And if you watch for no other reason, watch to hear his answer to that question.

PERINO: Since I -- I still have the -- gavel, I will continue. I was just curious if you had heard from any of the family members, or what sort of reaction you received today the sort of feedback you have from this interview.

KELLY: I have had a lot of overwhelming responses online from 9/11 family members and from just our viewers in general. All of which were positive, I have not heard any sort of negative feedback -- against Mr. Mitchell -- in fact, or Dr. Mitchell. In fact, people were so grateful just to hear from one of the people who was actually involved -- as opposed to the armchair quarterbacks who we normally are listening to on this. I mean this guy, was there and is sitting down there in Florida right now wondering why no one came to talk to him when they were trying to do a comprehensive report on the CIA interrogation program. Which he in large part designed, which he in large part carried out and about which he has encyclopedic knowledge. Did is a little strange?

PERINO: Alright. Megyn, thank you so much for joining us and we'll tune in tonight, to The Kelly File at 9 p.m. eastern for part two of Megyn exclusive with Dr. James Mitchell.

But first, a major announcement shakes up the 2016 presidential race will reveal, yet Bush is big news, next on The Five.


GUILFOYLE: Well some big news rocking the world of politics, this morning, Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, announced he's seriously considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 with this Facebook post. "I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for president of the United States. In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America." Bush's spokesperson says, he has not made a final decision on whether he will run, so how will his exploration impact the rest of the GOP hopefuls, Dana?

PERINO: Well, -- what I like about this, or if anybody have done it before, that he really sees the first mover advantage. So, the next two weeks -- was the critics of Jeb Bush, and they are many and they are loud and vocal and fierce. In the next two weeks, -- they will get that out of their system during the holidays and then perhaps, he thinks at that point he can start to engaged them on the policy front. The hard work know -- I think is yet to come which is the build of an infrastructure. So, it is a massive undertaking, I think that the Clintons kind of already have this in place.


PERINO: In a lot of ways and the Republicans, whoever does emerge from the primary, will -- that will be difficult for them. I don't think other Republican governors expected Jeb Bush to move this quickly. And so that might be an advantage for him. At this point, as I said yesterday, I don't think the Republicans are on the position to narrow down any of their options so, I think -- here we go.


PERINO: It's gonna be a fun two years.

GUILFOYLE: Do you wish him well?

PERINO: Well -- sure. I'm -- I just know, -- I think I should make something clear -- I never work for Jeb Bush. I know him as a -- more like friend or a colleague, I should not say colleague, not my colleague. I knew him that way I'm not endorsing him, I'm not a fan, I don't work for him, I'm not a surrogate.

BECKEL: They -- couple of thing was strike about me about this. For one, I agree with your earlier move and I think it probably -- upset a lot of people where thinking about it. But more than that, he's now started to exploratory, he thinks he can raise money.

PERINO: Correct.

BECKEL: And he can go around the country and campaign basically.
Exploratory money doesn't count yet, when you got the election. You can raise money from those people again. The second thing he do which I think is more important in some way, he started his own pact, where he can money and use that where the counties -- around the country. This guy -- in some people in the Iowa already, he gave this speeches in South Carolina, he is running, there's no question about that. The only reason he would not run, is if somewhere along the line, something bad happen to him, they found something. But this is the first candidate in the race for absolutely certain.

GUILFOYLE: And then from that, if I can follow up with you Bob, form a strategy perspective, you like the fact that he got out in front even if it is essentially Christmas week. Because there are a lot of people talking about running but now, he is like the first one out of pact.

BECKEL: Yeah, he wanted -- he doesn't have to do and the rest of him do it, it doesn't (inaudible). So, he can take it, it's not like Dana said, he will take it, there's no question about that. But hits are only so good so many times I mean, if you're gonna take them, they keep coming back and back and back. And some point, this is gonna force for these other people to get into the race and then you got to see of his coming from all the directions.

GUILFOYLE: Eric, talking about the impacts another GOP hopefuls, who use all things that might jump in and how this might impact their decision making.

BOLLING: Well, we thought Marco Rubio with that happened to Marco Rubio said that he doesn't affect his plans or whatsoever. He hasn't -- necessarily decided yet, but it hasn't changed his plans whatever they were in any way, shape or form. I think it hurts Chris Christie a little bit, because a lot of people who were the -- you know, -- if I'm not gonna vote for Bush, I probably will vote for someone like Chris Christie. So, Chris Christie is probably unnoticed right now. If he's gonna something may have to do it quickly. I don't think it's gonna affect the walker -- I'm naming seeded governors because those are the ones that people say, there's a certain group that would vote for seeded GOP governor rather than a senator right now or other. Chris Christie, Scott Walker is probably not affected that either, because -- it would affect Chris not Walker.

GUILFOYLE: What about Rick Perry?

BOLLING: I don't think Rick Perry is a fail -- I like Rick Perry personally, I just don't think he's a feasible candidate.

BECKEL: By the way.

BOLLING: And I'm telling.

BECKEL: Go on, I'm really sorry.

BOLLING: And Dana, I think it won't affect them. I will tell you, there are dates that are important. January 31st, April 15th, are the first two dates that the FPC requires you to -- state what you, what you've raised and you need to have that on the Bush. So I think, what Jeb has done, is he's pushed it forward a little bit so, people were gonna wait to push it, maybe past that April 15th date, maybe whoever was gonna jump in. Rand Paul, some of the others may.

GUILFOYLE: You left the big name out. What about Romney?

BOLLING: I think, I think this is eliminates Romney. I think Romney is only said, if -- if Jeb Bush.


BOLLING: Who doesn't want to run, he would run, I think Romney.


BOLLING: You know what? He'll support him.


BECKEL: I agree with that, sure he said. But the Rubio thing is what you would say, I mean, that's exactly what I'm saying, he's toast. I mean, the fact is the money on that state is gonna go to Bush.


BECKEL: It's not gonna go to Rubio, and you've got to defend your own state. The other thing is having one of these things. The earlier you're out, the earlier you get an infrastructure put together. And those reported they could about important, that's scares people. They look at it, I bet you Bush has raised a lot of money.


BECKEL: I don't have this file.

GUILFOYLE: The word on the street is he's has tons of cash behind him.

BECKEL: Yeah, and that case, other can may said -- who, my way behind, which forces them to jump in earlier, was generally just a big mistakes.

GUILFOYLE: Alright, there you go. Greg, I'm gonna give you two full minutes to enjoy.


GUTFELD: Well, this wasn't the Bush I wanted, I think you -- I wanted Billy.

PERINO: Good choice.

GUTFELD: Yeah. But -- what's interesting and what's obvious is I think if he gets the nomination, Hillary gets it. You got Bush versus Clinton, which everybody talks about, but this could be really be the rebirth of 1992, you know, talking about Sinead O'Connor, the Chicago Bulls, Fabio, Andre Agassi, Steffi Graf, we could rerelease "Basic Instinct." Woody Allen could leave Soon-Yi for another stepdaughter, which hasn't done since 1992, maybe Eddie Fisher's gonna shoot somebody, that was 1992. The royal couple could separate, 1992. And the best part about 1992, Right Said Fred had a hit song, I'm too sexy, they might tour again. I might -- I think 1992 was a great year.

PERINO: The good old days.

GUTFELD: They were to the good old days. You're three.

BECKEL: You know, I keep listening talked about Clinton and Bush. The fact of the matter is these are the two former presidents right? They haven't the name, and be the logical people you would look at as potential front- runners, and he should. And he - he's the guy about sentenced for months, guys scares me to death.

BOLING: Can I just fill something out here? And listen.

GUILFOYLE: Bush, Clinton, again.

BOLLING: I'll be the first to vote for a Bush over a Clinton, absolutely hands down no question. But there are those on the right, and Dana pointed it out. Those -- the far right doesn't want to see another Bush, Clinton.


GUILFOYLE: Do they want to see another Obama? Because, that's what I want to ask them.

GUTFELD: Actually, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to have another Obama.

GUILFOYLE: Because what?

GUTFELD: From the Republican Party side, a real candidate is one that genuinely acts and sounds like a -- has the mannerisms and the humor and the charm of a Democrat, because that's what's been missing from the Republicans since Reagan.

GUILFOYLE: And you've been praying to your little unicorn every night.

GUTFELD: I have.

GUILFOYLE: One hasn't been conjured up yet.

GUTFELD: I know.

GUILFOYLE: So there you go. Well, let's see --

PERINO: I think the other thing --

GUILFOYLE: Things that happen.

PERINO: He has said about himself that he's gonna -- he been -- he would have a hard time in the primary so, he already has been disarming in that -
- what you gonna do? -- The critics are gonna say, but he could have won the primary. So well, he already said that, so -- he's being knows that he's gonna have a hard time, he's got a high bar to clear.

GUILFOYLE: But he could win.

PERINO: In order to fight and earn their trust.

GUILFOYLE: In the general election.

PERINO: Exactly, I think it's pretty smart.

GUILFOYLE: That would say.

BECKEL: It's -- listen, the another thing about this not winning the primary, they can play that game all they want. A crowded field in Iowa, Bush could win that? It can win handedly. He can win South Carolina, let's remember, the last two Republican nominees were the moderates in the race, and because the conservatives can't put together enough votes do it.


BOLLING: They didn't win any of them.

GUILFOYLE: But he also checked.

BECKEL: Oh, but I'm --

GUILFOYLE: He also checked the box in Florida and amazing, love it, a Latina family as well.


GUILFOYLE: So I think that's gonna be good too. And so perhaps, I think he is somebody who's willing to listen to read them with respect education and immigration.

And next on The Five, some big time celebrities like Oprah, Brad Pitt, are speaking out about Sony hacking scandal. You're gonna hear from the queen of all media and the Hollywood heart rob, when we return. Stay with us.


BOLLING: Some big Hollywood stars are now pushing back hard against skeptics -- media, in the Sony hacking scandal. Brad Pitt A.K.A Mr.
Angelina Jolie, for one is taking the press protest for reporting the sensitive and sometimes embarrassing information stolen.

BRAD PITT, ACTOR: I think too much conversation whether on e-mail or in person should be private and we shouldn't be participating in these sites that are disseminating them should stop, they won't. Then we should stop reading them, we won't. And it's more of an indictment on us, I think.

BOLLING: Even the Newsroom Creator Aaron Sorkin whose name appeared in some of the e-mails called out news outlets from printing materials from the massive Sony leak -- (inaudible)

AARON SORKIN, NEWSROOM CREATOR: Is there anything in these e-mails at all that's in the public interest that points to wrong doing at the company?
That helps anyone in any way? There isn't, there's just gossip there, how many different bedrock -- pieces of our decency do you have to obliterate before the press stops running the anchor leg of these relay travesty.

BOLLING: Right. And -- that's kind of -- we've been saying, but uses to say here, what we've been saying here, don't publish this stuff and then.


BOLLING: .Thwart some of it.

GUTFELD: I want you to know, the thing is though, when we say that we're taking the higher ground, I agree with Sony, I agree with all of them. I hope that they return the favor that the next time someone like Sarah Palin is hacked in their e-mails, are crowd sourced to buy newspapers. They don't rub their hands with glee, and say, "Oh, this isn't it awesome," and they remember that the people that don't necessarily agree with them now are backing them and they do believe that gossip and personal revelations are off limits. I don't know Oprah or Brad Pitt defended Sarah Palin, which she got hacked. I don't remember.

BOLLING: Probably not. K.G., it's something on it, though.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, I thought it was interesting, because Brad Pitt coming out in front of this topic, when in fact, one of the lead emails pertained to his wife, saying that she was minimally talented and et cetera. It was disparaging, essentially, about Angelina Jolie. And he's like, "Listen, you know, feel bad for Sony. Don't publish this. We're doing the wrong thing."

Anyway, maybe she's not sleeping with him anymore.

BOLLING: Dana, what about...

GUTFELD: Terrible.

BOLLING: Oh, my goodness.

GUILFOYLE: No, to punish him for saying that.

BOLLING: Oh, I see. He was supporting her.

GUILFOYLE: No, but like Sony wrote about his wife. He's actually supporting Sony by saying don't publish the e-mails that these things wrote bad things about his wife.

BOLLING: So what do you think? Do you think other media will say, if it's a conservative or it's not opposite of their ideology, will they hold back?

PERINO: I would definitely make that pact if I believed for one second that they would do anything. Remember when President Bush's e-mails were hacked and some of his paintings were revealed, and the media was -- you know, printed it with glee.

But I agree with what Brad Pitt was saying, is that the only way to really stop it is everybody stop reading those newspapers or publications, or those publications stop printing it. Neither of those things are going to happen.

So then what is the next step? And it does seem to me that whoever the hackers, plural or singular are, they're having quite an impact, not only on this discussion about the internal workings of Sony and what they said about one another and their clients, but also about the movie premier, for which this has been the subject. And, you know, if it is somebody in North Korea or China, we've got to realize that this could happen with all sorts of hostage taking...

GUTFELD: It's Jennifer Aniston.


BOLLING: Or someone in the movie.

GUTFELD: It's Jennifer Aniston, to get back at Brad Pitt and Angelina, because Angelina stole Brad Pitt. This has all been the work of Jennifer Aniston.

GUILFOYLE: Not Kim Jong-un, right. We know.

BECKEL: This really doesn't have politics on it, because we're all in the same boat here together. And the better these guys get at hacking, if you think -- you can't build a firewall strong enough to keep these people out, more than likely, which means everyone's going to suffer from this. It scares me to death. I mean, if it happened to me, I would be total toast, I mean toast.

BOLLING: Can I bring this in? I want to play this sound bite, because I want Bob to react to this. Whether you believe -- agree that the hacking details deserve to be reported on or not, Oprah Winfrey advises critics not to judge what some say are racially insensitive comments from Sony executives. Listen.


OPRAH WINFREY, OWNER, O NETWORK: I would hope that we would not stand in judgment, in such harsh judgment of the moments in time where somebody was hacked and their private conversations were put before the world.

Because if we were to look at your computer, and everybody else's computer, I try to write everything as though it's going to show up in the New York Times. But there are things that you stay in your private conversations with your friends and with your colleagues that you would not want be broadcast on CNN.


BOLLING: Fine, Bob.

BECKEL: It's fine -- it's fine to say that, but on the other hand, when you're talking about something that's racial like that, I'm not so sure that she's being quite balanced on this.

I mean, she -- she talks about would she do that? You're right, if FOX News or somebody else did it and said something that was racially sensitive like that, my guess is she would be the first one to jump in.

GUTFELD: I have to point out that Sony got grief over what was perceived to be racist jokes about the president. Like asking the president what kind of black movies he would go see. That wasn't racist. What they were doing was a commentary on racism. They were joking as though they were racist. And this has becoming a huge problem for a lot of people who do not get defended.

PERINO: The joke within the joke?

GUTFELD: The joke was in the joke. They were pretending to actually be a bigot on their e-mail. They're saying, "So what are you going to ask him?
Ask him if he saw 'Django.' Ask him if he saw 'The Butler.'" They were pretending. They were pretending. They weren't racist. But nobody would defend us on that.

That happened to me with a joke about a month ago, and everybody thought it was a sexist joke. I was actually mocking sexism. But nobody defended it.

GUILFOYLE: The joke within the joke.

BOLLING: The other thing is they excuse -- the media excuses people if it's a comedian. If it's Chris Rock, or if it's Louis C.K., it's excused.
And if it's not a comedian, and it's said in the same tone and the same purpose, it's inexcusable.

GUTFELD: There will always be a double standard with FOX. We gave a bull's eye on us, because we don't follow the same assumptions as Hollywood. Get used to it; it's never going to change.

BOLLING: All right. We've got to go.


BOLLING: I'm going to shortchange you guys, all right?

PERINO: I'm fine.

BOLLING: You mad at me?


BOLLING: All right.


BOLLING: Directly ahead, the Rolling Stone writer behind the false UVA rape story wants a rewrite as witnesses are now claiming nothing she wrote about was true. Does she deserve a do-over? Details next on FOX.


GUTFELD: The hack behind the discredited Rolling Stone piece about a gang rape at the University of Virginia is getting a do-over. The A.P. reports that Sabrina Erdely contacted three friends of the alleged victim, something she should have done before writing her story about Jackie, saying she is re-reporting the whole thing.

The friends say they were completely mis-portrayed by Erdely. The writer described them as mainly concerned about the social price of Jackie reporting her alleged rape. In reality, they did tell her to go to the cops, but she refused.

Now, call me crazy, but I think it might be better having someone else redo this story. I mean, this is like giving a chef another shot at dinner after giving the whole restaurant the runs.

This is like letting a babysitter watch one of your kids after she traded the other one for pot.

This is like giving Al Sharpton a TV show after Tawana Brawley.

Look, no one deserves a cushy job, especially when they're so damn bad at it. Sabrina came in with a bias and reverse-engineered this story to fit that bias. Her article wasn't journalism but vandalism. She wanted to smear an institution, but instead smeared everyone, including herself.

The up side, we're now reporting the real facts about campus rape. It's not one in five but one in 52, a difference in a factor of ten. That's still a lot, but fabrications only serve to create an ocean of helplessness and rage.

So maybe Sabrina deserves some credit but not a second chance.

So Kim...


GUTFELD: Kimberly, I don't know if this second chance is affiliated with Rolling Stone, but can anyone take her seriously as a journalist?

GUILFOYLE: No, no one should even read it. I mean, why does she get the chance to go back and do it? I mean, she has proof conclusively beyond any reasonable doubt that she is unfit to be a journalist and put forward a story like this.

I don't understand. Under what concept is she allowed to do over? Like, you're allowed a do-over when you're in kindergarten or first or second grade. Come on.

GUTFELD: Or play golf with Bob.

GUILFOYLE: Play with the grown-ups. Get it right the first time. It's actually called a mulligan.

GUTFELD: Yes. But this is -- she's an activist journalist. She's often talked about how she looks for victims in order to frame stories. Can't -- can't can she ever really be taken seriously as a journalist?

BECKEL: Well, and this is beginning with the notion that she wanted to write a story, and therefore you have to find a victim and then frame the story. It seems to me to take you out of the business of being a journalist. I mean, it takes you into the world of fiction.


BECKEL: And so I suspect if she has any opening (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

GUTFELD: Yes. Eric, you know what's interesting? OK. They focused -- these activists focused on college females. It turns out the details, the actual statistics show that college females have a 25 percent lower chance of victimization than non-students. So it's people who aren't in college.

BOLLING: Population.


BOLLING: So here's what Sabrina did. She started with her premise and she backed and filled and then never interviewed the people that were accused.
So think about what else has happened the past couple of weeks.

Senator Feinstein started with the premise that torture is bad. She backed and filled. She went back and found some stuff that -- interrogation techniques that they were using, never interviewed the people who were accused of doing it. It's the exact same thing.

So if we hold Sabrina Erdely to a standard at Rolling Stone, why don't we hold Dianne Feinstein to the same -- to the same standard? Why isn't she up and under review? Why aren't we asking -- let's do a redo on the Senate interrogation report? I'm all for that.

Look, Rolling Stone, you're right, should definitely not go back to the same reporter who filed -- who just literally basically screwed this up.

BECKEL: That's a little bit of a reach, isn't it?

BOLLING: Why is it, Bob? What's the difference?

BECKEL: You may not agree with that report that came out with -- at least it came out with some facts.

BOLLING: She didn't ask any -- she didn't ask -- she spoke to Megyn Kelly, who talked to the doctor who administered...

BECKEL: I understand that. And I think it's a little apples and oranges.

BOLLING: I think it's exactly that.

GUILFOYLE: It's completely insane. It's like you wouldn't put up with it in a court of law, but it's OK to smear and besmirch people that kept America safe by putting forward a completely biased report that was wholly incomplete in its entirety.

BECKEL: Well, you consider it wholly biased. I don't. So there.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, but you like the outcome. That's what you go on. Do I like the outcome? Do I agree with the premise? Does it fit my politics?
You know, is it partisan enough? The answer is yes, so therefore, it's good for you.

GUTFELD: Dana, I didn't know this was going to go into torture. But I want to ask you. What about the future of Rolling Stone? How does this affect -- do they get a crisis manager?

PERINO: You mean, they're checking to see their articles beforehand? I think that's what you call an editor.

GUTFELD: Yes, that's true.

GUILFOYLE: That's not a buddy (ph).

PERINO: I don't know what will happen to them. I think all -- most publications are struggling. Long form journalism like that is an important contribution to the conversation.


PERINO: But it has to be accurate and, from what I can tell, Rolling Stone is just basically batten down the hatches, weather the storm, and come out with their, whatever, new issue in January and pretend it never happened.

BOLLING: Can you imagine how boring that story's going to be, if she writes it, though? "Well, you know what? Yes, it's not as bad as I thought, and that whole story about UVA was wrong, and all that.

GUTFELD: It's still probably not as bad as the Tsarnaev cover. I think that might be worse than...

PERINO: I don't know. Those are bad. Those are bad.

GUTFELD: Tsarnaev offend a lot of -- a lot of people affected by "Parks & Rec" bombing. I don't know. I don't know what's worse.

There were a lot of people that were affected by that Boston bombing.
Rolling Stone sucks.

Up next, a college professor targets a Christian tradition for millions of families, Bob breaks down the Elf on the Shelf controversy when we return.


BECKEL: They're watching your kids' every move, then flies back to the North Pole to let Santa know if they're being naughty or nice. But one thing the professor says the Elf on the Shelf is teaching children to think spying is just part of life, claiming Santa's helper is poisoning kids'
brains by making them think it's OK to surrender their privacy.

Why does this fun Christmas tradition have to be politicized? First of all, if you don't know this -- you probably do if you're parents -- this thing sits on the shelf for a couple of months, usually, and the kids are told they're watching, and if they do bad things, it's going to go tell Santa. And it usually helps to get kids to calm down, apparently. They weren't around when my kids were young. But what do you think? Eric, do your kids...

BOLLING: No, he's 16. It's only been around for seven or eight years, so he's probably beyond thinking this little elf. I mean, that that elf could actually get in contact with Santa Claus that quickly is what I mean.

To be honest, I don't get this whole phenomenon.

BECKEL: I don't get it either.

BOLLING: Apparently they're not allowed to touch it.

GUILFOYLE: Don't touch it. If you touch it, the elf loses its magic power.

BECKEL: It's going to come back to haunt you.

GUILFOYLE: Because you have that, children at home, the elves lose their magic power.

BECKEL: Are you worried about this trend? Have you been naughty or nice?

PERINO: I'm more worried about professors who think it is worth doing -- stirring up a controversy about this. They must have had a really bad childhood.

BECKEL: Yes. What do you think? Well, your kid...

GUILFOYLE: I think it bears a striking resemblance to Greg Gutfeld. Look at that face. So commercial misappropriation, I think you can bring a case, because this is a big money maker.

GUTFELD: I was in IKEA the other day, and a bookcase fell on me. There was a shelf on an elf.


GUILFOYLE: ... and I have one at my house.

BECKEL: Greg, come on, talk to me.


GUTFELD: No, I actually have...

GUILFOYLE: Doesn't work.

GUTFELD: This is...

BOLLING: I'm sorry.

GUTFELD: This is a -- meant to watch children so they don't do bad things.
This is not new. This is, as a child, what we called dead relatives who passed away. When you were a kid, you didn't do certain things, because you thought maybe Granny was watching. So that kept you from...

PERINO: Really?

GUTFELD: ... certain types of behaviors that perhaps you shouldn't be doing. Like Senate (ph) behaviors.

BECKEL: Are you -- you remember when you had a relative that was put in their living room when they -- for their wakes? I had an uncle like that.
He was there for two days. I slept outside the whole time.


GUTFELD: The elf on the shelf.

GUILFOYLE: This is the worst segment.

BECKEL: What do you mean it's the worst segment? What are you talking about?

GUILFOYLE: I mean, it's terrible.

GUTFELD: As kids -- as kids you operated your entire life under the idea of surveillance.

GUILFOYLE: You don't get it. He just said he had a dead relative in his house for two days.

GUTFELD: You thought that you were being watched, right?

PERINO: And it's not a terrible thing for kids to think that they're being watched.

GUTFELD: Well, you should be able to act morally without being watched.

BOLLING: Am I getting this right?

GUILFOYLE: That's called going to church.

BOLLING: They're afraid of Santa Claus...

GUTFELD: No, it's called not going to church.

BOLLING: They're afraid of Santa Claus being mad at them but not their parents?

GUTFELD: Yes. Exactly.

BOLLING: It goes all around this room, but be careful if that guy sees you.

BECKEL: All right. We're getting out of the worst block we've had on this show. "One More Thing" is up next.


PERINO: It's time now for "One More Thing." I will go first. One of my favorite people is Steve Scully. He is the host of the Washington Journal on C-SPAN. And he had a debate this morning between two brothers, Brad and Dallas Woodhouse (ph). One's a Republican; one's a Democrat. And they were debating the Affordable Care Act and politics in general. They had a lot of fireworks at home. They take callers on that show, and they had a surprise one this morning. Watch this.


STEVE SCULLY, C-SPAN: Hey, somebody from down south.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're right, I'm from down South.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I'm your mother. And I -- I disagree that all families are like ours. I don't know many families that are fighting at Thanksgiving. I was very glad that this Thanksgiving was a year that you two were supposed to go to your in-laws. And I was hoping -- I'm hoping you'll have some of this out of your system when you come here for Christmas.


PERINO: Good for you, Mom. You can bring us all together. A little reminder from Mom is always good.

GUILFOYLE: I think that's very cute.

PERINO: Right. Kimberly, you're next.

GUILFOYLE: All right. So I've got a funny one, because you didn't have enough Oprah in your face today. We've got Oprah and Jimmy Fallon, doing a little skit together. Very fun.


JIMMY FALLON, HOST, NBC'S "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JIMMY FALLON": You've been quite distant lately. I want you to answer this question, and I want you to answer honestly.

WINFREY: What is it, darling?

FALLON: Are you seeing another man?

WINFREY: How dare you?


GUILFOYLE: Showing off their acting chops. Anyway, I like it.
Entertaining. And very cute.

PERINO: You're easily entertained, though.

GUTFELD: Yes. That's for sure, wow.


GUILFOYLE: Isn't that a nice thing?

PERINO: Yes, I mean...

GUILFOYLE: Easy to feed and easy to entertain, what's wrong with that?

PERINO: Exactly. OK, Greg, you get to go next.

GUTFELD: Um, this.


GUTFELD: I hate these people!


GUTFELD: Yes, if you live on the coast, which God help you, there's a new trend called artisanal ice, which is basically ice cubes that are homemade at the restaurant to your specifications.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, lord.

GUTFELD: I went to -- I was in a bar downtown a couple of days ago, and this is the -- this is the little notice that comes, and it reads, "Our ice is produced at the bar with the Clinebell machine, yielding 300-pound blocks of crystal clear ice that is carved to order. We are the first bar in the world to champion an in-house Clinebell block ice production program.

Well, God bless you and your Clinebell block ice production program.

PERINO: Do you have to pay extra for that?

GUTFELD: I don't know. I've got to tell you one thing. The drinks were amazing.

BOLLING: Amazing.

PERINO: Why do you like this place?

BOLLING: It's probably shaved. It's probably chipped with an ice chipper.
It's probably fantastic. A cocktail with that? I'm all for it.


GUTFELD: I'll tell you the name. I crossed it out, because I didn't want them to hate me. Yes.

BECKEL: Do they carve it, like, into designs or something?

GUTFELD: No. It's just...

PERINO: It's not even that good, Bob.

GUILFOYLE: This should become a whole block on the show. Pun intended.


BECKEL: All right. This is a nice story for Christmas. A cashier in Rotterdam, New York, named Jenny Carpenter is a cashier, and a guy came through with all these groceries, an older man, and he didn't have enough money to pay for his groceries. And he said, "Is this enough?"

And she said, "No, it's not," and he was started to take his groceries back. She reached into her pocket, took out $40 of her own money so he could take all his groceries home.

GUILFOYLE: How sweet is that.

BECKEL: Very nice thing to do that. And congratulations. And I hope that the gentleman you helped will always remember that good work on your part.


PERINO: Very nice. All right, Eric, you're next.

BOLLING: I actually loved this story. You hear what happened today?
Apparently, New York magazine interviewed a kid, a high school kid who said he made $72 million during his lunchtime at Stiverson High School here in New York. He's Mohammed Islam. It turns out they went to print with the magazine. I believe it's on the newsstands right now. It turns out he was just a little bit shy of $72 million. You know how much he made?

PERINO: Goose egg.

BOLLING: Nothing at all, another example of magazine editors not fact checking the whole story.

GUTFELD: Also reporters that don't know anything about stocks or economics, because they would not have bought this.

BOLLING: Right. As soon as we heard it, we were like, no, it's not true.

GUTFELD: Not true.

BOLLING: By the way, her name is Jessica Pressler. I'm sorry, Jessica, we had to do that, because just fact check the article. You've got to fact check it.

GUILFOYLE: He's a kid, and he's doing like...

BOLLING: Zero. Nothing. Air ball.

GUILFOYLE: That kid's going to end up going far.


PERINO: All right. Before we go tonight, it's the first night of Hanukah, so we want to wish a very happy holiday to all who celebrate. Happy Hanukah from "The Five."

That's it for us. "Special Report" is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 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.