This is a rush transcript from "The Five," July 20, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: This is a Fox News alert: Earlier this evening CIA Director Mike Pompeo slammed The New York Times for outing an undercover CIA officer. Let's bring in Fox News' Ed Henry for more on this story. Ed?
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: Dana, good to see you, a dramatic development tonight. This is happening at the Aspen security forum, this is an annual event out in Colorado where every summer these various security officials, military leaders get together and talk about the top issues of the day. Russian interference by the way in the last presidential election was also a major topic.
We'll get into that because Rick Pompeo, the CIA director also got frustrated by a series of questions from reporters and panelists about that. But what he was particularly angry about the President's CIA director is the fact that The New York Times back in early June published an account of the new chief of Iran operations at the Central Intelligence Agency. And they basically named this official even though he's a clandestine official. And his identity is supposed to be secret. The CIA director teed off on The New York Times for publishing his name.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: We had a publication you worked for Bret that published the name of an undercover officer at the Central Intelligence Agency. I find that unconscionable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now, Fox News is also withholding the identity of the CIA official because The New York Times in their own account in June did say, he was still working as a clandestine official, they noted that officials who commented on the identity of this person who's running Iran operations at the CIA spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is still working on a clandestine basis and this could obviously put his life in jeopardy if the Iranians figured out, if other officials around the world figure it out.
The New York Times by the way in their June account justified publishing the name by saying, number one, his identity had been previously named in other news accounts and they also fell back on the notion that since he is running Iran operations for President Trump who is pushing a more muscular approach towards Tehran, it justified The New York Times publishing at least in their eyes the name of this clandestine official because they wanted to tell the public about the Trump administration's approach to Iran and how it was going to be more aggressive than the Obama administration and potentially even include attempts to overthrow the Iranian government.
So, this is a dramatic development tonight, this CIA director saying that this could have put this official in jeopardy and that the name never should have been published -- Dana.
PERINO: I'm actually shocked because Director Pompeo showing a lot of restraints there. And I wonder if The New York Times if they, this is a justification as you just described it, I would love to go back and read all of those articles and editorials about Valerie Plame, okay? Who was at a desk job at the CIA, I don't have to get in to all of that. But the difference is to me that is very stark to what you just said.
PERINO: Before we take it around the table, can I ask you, do we know if The New York Times asked the administration for a comment, and if the CIA or the White House asked The New York Times not to release the names?
HENRY: Well, The New York Times to be fair did not directly say that in the June account whether or not the administration urged them to not publish it. But the way that the Times described the person's identity and the publishing of this account, it certainly sounded like I could tell you as a reporter that the administration was frustrated and angry that The New York Times was going to go forward with its account. Because they explained in the story. As I just quoted from it, The New York Times had to lay out why they felt justified.
And again, they fell back on the notion that another unnamed news organization had named the CIA official, so they felt it was okay. And number two, they justified it, the New York Times by saying, well, President Trump is leading a more muscular approach to Iran so we need tell the public who is this person leading the policy. Obviously as you just heard from the CIA Director, Dana, he is to say the least frustrated --
HENRY: -- at the idea that this name would be revealed.
PERINO: Well, if it's more muscular hence you would need actually to keep him more covert so that he can do his actual job. We're going to take around the table. Kimberly.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: You said it. I mean, you're right. I think Pompeo is actually showing a considerable amount of restraint, Ed, I mean, in terms of the National Security implications. And the people that put it on the line every day to serve in this capacity, they already in positions that are fraught with the danger. To do this, it gives no confidence I believe to the men and women that serve, if you're going to have a paper do this, I mean, what do you think are going to be the next step as it relates to Pompeo to try to assure his individuals, the people working for him that this type of thing is not going to be repeated?
HENRY: Well, it's a good question Kimberly because part of the frustration clearly from the CIA director we saw on those comments, is there is frankly nothing he can do at this point, since the Times already published this official's name back in June. As I mentioned, we are not naming the official because even the Times acknowledged in naming him that he is still working at this moment as a clandestine officer.
Obviously, since it was published in "The New York Times," the Iranians and others know who this person is but you would assume but behind the scenes steps are being taken to try to keep him safe and his family obviously. But this is worrisome for the administration, especially at a time when they are trying to step it up and deal with Iran in a more muscular way as you say.
They just were embarrassed the administration because they recertified the Iran nuclear deal, they are under great pressure as you know, from conservatives to say, wait a second, President Trump during the campaign said he was going to rip up the Iran deal. But I think what the administration is saying, they need a little bit more time to figure out, okay, if you rip up the Iran nuclear deal, what comes next. Obviously, it's a kind of a reminder, a little bit similar to the ObamaCare debate, you can repeal it, what are you going to replace it with?
PERINO: Jesse Watters?
JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: Ed, there seems to be a pattern here of The New York Times actively subverting the ability of the United States defense to protect American lives. If you look even back to the Bush administration, the Times exposed the, you know, the CIA black sites.
WATTERS: The Times exposed the terror financing networking. The Times also exposed the NSA surveillance program after being begged and pleaded with to stop, it's going to jeopardize National Security. Now they expose a covert intelligence officer. Are there any consequences for The New York Times? I know there is a freedom of speech issue, there's a freedom of the press. Is there anything that can be done if it can be proven that they are actively putting lives at risk?
HENRY: Well, what you can see is obviously this is happening in a broader context, in which, not just the administration writ large but particularly the commander-in-chief. President Trump has taken a very aggressive stance towards the media, the attacks on Twitter and elsewhere particularly against "The New York Times," in attacking some of their reports as fake news. So, it's happening in that context of a very divisive time and there's nothing to answer your question directly that specifically the administration can do to stop the publication of this kind of a story.
But you're right, there's a push and a pole, this is a traditional fight. There is that broader context where we as journalists want to publish as much information as we think the public has a right to know about and certainly the Times tried to make that case in their June report. And I suspect now they're going to have to respond to the CIA director's very critical comments to again justify why they published it and they're going to try to lay out their case.
But you're right. This is happening at a time, very dangerous times all around the world in this administration. Part of the frustration you can see from the CIA director is there's not a whole lot he can do about the fact that this clandestine official's name is just out there for all the world to see.
PERINO: Hmm. Greg Gutfeld.
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: What's up, Ed?
HENRY: How are you, buddy?
GUTFELD: I'm great. Thanks for asking. So, they out an officer which basically puts this person in danger, I want to point out the irony that over the weekend in The New York Times printed a piece about how words can be harmful. I don't know if you saw that piece. And they were talking about -- because it creates stress hormones. This is how words actually equal death, not to Charles Murray speech.
GUTFELD: But they went to great length to talk about how words actually matter. But it doesn't matter when they're using them and actually putting people in danger. My other question is, my question, my only question is that, to "The New York Times," the scoop is a scoop no matter what. So, they will do anything to get it yet they find it critical of Donald, Jr., takes a meeting. Could they have gotten this information from Russians?
HENRY: We don't know that.
GUTFELD: We don't do it. We don't. I mean, it could be from a foreign source, what if it was from Iranians we don't know. And why did they turn this information over first? Why did they take this meeting, it seems pretty fishy to me. They shouldn't have take it. They should not take this meeting.
GUILFOYLE: That is the worst publication in the world.
HENRY: First of all, you said there was only one question I think I just heard six or seven.
GUTFELD: Yes. I'm sorry. I just got backed.
HENRY: Okay. So, let's take with the facts and you're not giving me facts right now because you're saying one question, that is two questions, that is three -- no, in all seriousness --
GUTFELD: Don't avoid the question.
HENRY: This is clearly tied to Russia, it has to be investigated.
GUTFELD: There you go.
PERINO: Okay. So, we're going to go to Juan Williams, next.
JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: So, Ed, I think there are lots of long nights out right now. And part of it is the politicization of the intelligence community. President Trump has said, you know, he doesn't necessarily agree that Russia interfered, maybe it was China, maybe it was a fat guy on his couch in the basement, he doesn't agree with their conclusion that in fact Russians were giving him preference, they wanted him to win the elections.
So, he has been challenging our intelligence officials in a very aggressive manner. Now Pompeo comes back and he is striking at the Times for something that happened some time ago. So, the question becomes, is this just about politics?
HENRY: Well, you're certainly right that the context should be added that it did not mention that President Trump has not just been taking on the media, he's been taking on the intelligence community. So, the administration is now going to blame The New York Times in this particular case but there are certainly other cases where it's been the White House, the administration that has been taking actions that has frustrated the Intelligence Community, so that's out there as well.
But I want to make an important point that you alluded to which is that Rick Pompeo, the CIA director also got very frustrated at this Aspen Security Forum when he was asked repeatedly on a panel discussion about did the Russians interfere in the election or not? And he kept saying, yes, I believe that they did, but to take a look at our actions moving forward. More important than that is what is the administration doing from a policy standpoint?
Are we being tough with Russia on issues like Syria or not? And he was asked again and he was finally again flashed anger and said, for the 19th or 20th time, I will tell you, Rich Pompeo (ph) said, yes, I believe Russia interfered - I'm sorry, I said Rich, Mike Pompeo that, you know, that they did interfere in the election. They tried to anyway according to the CIA director.
However, look at what we're doing moving forward from the policy standpoint, and you can bet, that's going to be one of the big questions moving forward. How tough or not is President Trump with Vladimir Putin in the Russians?
PERINO: Well, and I would just add, there was something we didn't mention is that, so these assets Kimberly has mentioned, they've given their time and talents to their country --
PERINO: So, as taxpayers, right? These are also the people that we pay for like -- we are responsible for them. So, it's not just that the CIA director is met at "The New York Times," I do think taxpayers have a right to be angry when one of their assets is inappropriately unmasked in Iran. Also Ed, is it your birthday?
HENRY: It is my birthday. I'm glad you mentioned that.
GUILFOYLE: Happy Birthday!
PERINO: Happy Birthday, Ed.
WATTERS: Happy 21st, Ed.
PERINO: And thank you so much for joining us and getting back to that breaking news. We appreciate it.
HENRY: All right. Thanks Dana.
PERINO: Ahead, O.J. Simpson is going to be a free man soon, he was granted parole after nearly nine years behind bars. Highlights from the hearing and our reaction, up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
CHAIRMAN CONNIE BRISBEE: You are Orenthal James Simpson?
O.J. SIMPSON, GRANTED PAROLE: Correct.
BRISBEE: And we have that you are currently, well very recently turned 90 years old. Ninety, I'm sorry about that.
SIMPSON: Look, I've missed a lot of time, like 36 birthdays with my children. And I ended up missing their graduation because of it, trust me, I wish it would have never happened.
I haven't made any excuses in nine years, but I should have never allowed these alleged security guys to help me because it turns out they were only trying to help themselves.
I'm not the guy who lived a criminal life, I've done my time, I would just like to get back to my family and friends and believe it or not I do have some real friends.
BRUCE FROMONG, SIMPSON VICTIM: I don't feel that he's a threat to anyone out there. He's a good man.
Nine-and-a-half to 33 years was way too long. It's time to give him a second chance.
COMMISSIONER TONY CORDA: We've heard from you and from your victims. My vote is to grant you parole effective when eligible.
COMMISSIONER SUSAN JACKSON: I concur with Commissioner Corda, and grant parole.
COMMISSIONER ADAM ENDEL: I concur with Commissioner Corda and agree to grant parole.
BRISBEE: Mr. Simpson, I do vote to grant parole when eligible. And that will conclude this hearing.
SIMPSON: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
GUTFELD: And he's single.
O.J. granted parole after almost nine years in jail, it's easy to see why, take a look at the visuals. He is jovial, joking around, people laughing along, a real cut up. And he's older now, age makes you look less scary. It is not that you're a better person, it's just that we can now outrun you. His hair went gray and so did justice as well as our grasp on morality.
Now when most people think of O.J., it's a myth linked to Emmy winning dramas. And now he's free -- unlike his victims -- to live out the rest of his life with fans, groupies and selfie seekers. I get it, he's famous and sympathetically a widower.
But since we're dealing with visuals, let's really deal with visuals. Beyond the charming smile of a 70-year-old man, the great thing about the internet is the awful thing about the internet. If you've never done a Google image search of Nicole Brown Simpson murder scene, it will quickly erase that kindly old man you just saw. Maybe you should, I'll wait.
So you see, evil isn't just an idea, it's a real thing and that real thing is free: Free to enjoy a margarita on a beach, free to enjoy TV offers from drooling producers, free to take pictures with ignorant Millennials unencumbered by his past. Maybe he'll get one or two of them back to his place and wake up the neighbors yet again.
As for the rest of the world, our ability to forgive is really more about forgetting. Forgetting is easier than remembering that he butchered two people. But hey, he was a model inmate because his options were limited. He met the criteria of release. Will our treatment of him now fulfill the criteria of shame?
Dana, the irony of all of this is, or the catch 22, is the only way for him to pay the family of the victims is for us to pay O.J. for work. So, we're going to have to feed his fame in order for them to get their money. So, he's going to be around, we're going to see him all over the place.
PERINO: He's been very widely about how to make a living unfortunately for his victims. He was also smart about hiding some of that money, the home that he owns in Florida, so that is protected from the civil asset forfeiture. And also it's interesting to me how parole works differently in different states. Had this crime actually happened somewhere else? He might not have been eligible for parole today.
And it is very hard for those of us who watched this story develop over the past 20 years. It is difficult to separate what happened in Los Angeles with what happened in Nevada, and I understand that this parole board, they only were responsible for looking at this particular crime and the rules are what they are. And so, that was why they had a unanimous decision.
GUTFELD: You know, but Juan, when I was watching it, it was just too much fun. There was too much laughter, and there was something about a charming famous person that exempts them from the rules. Right?
WILLIAMS: Always will be and it seems to be getting more and more that we are a nation that is guided by popularity, celebrity, whether or not you are rich. I think we've got in lots of ways by that. But in this case, I think what Dana said is on point. That this is not about the celebrated murder case, this is about the robbery. So, if you look at it in those terms, the upside here would have been if he had not been granted parole, because by all the criteria on the book, he is qualified.
And then it comes down to something else that you're talking about, Greg, which is, okay, so now he goes out and he begins this next chapter of his life at age 70. He can't just claim the money even if there are scurrilous producers in the like that you were referring to, who want to hire him or whatever. That money will go to the Goldman family.
WILLIAMS: As it should. So, the question is then, you know, what does he do? I don't know that he said, his daughter said today, he's been humbled by his time in jail. But the O.J. Simpson we know is not a humble guy.
WILLIAMS: And he's very much an aggressive publicity seeking egomaniac. So, where does he go? I don't know. But I don't think it's the case that this was any perversion of justice, in fact, I think this was justice.
GUTFELD: KG, the one thing that kills me is that he was a model inmate. There's not a lot of options in prison when you are OJ to be anything but a model inmate. I mean, he's like, you know, maybe he gets extra food but I mean, it's like, what else he's going to do? As you get older, he's not getting in fights. He is not a young kid.
GUILFOYLE: Yes. But he was -- believe it or not, he spoke a little bit too much saying like he was very jovial in nature which is very disrespectful, you know, to the victims. But again, the people that you really think about the victims are Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. But nevertheless based on the criteria and the checklist, they would have been treating different than anyone else if they did not release him and they made this based on, you know, specifics and criteria, like his age, so he starts to show remorse, and that bring religion.
And when you have the Christian groups lobby on your behalf essentially, and started, okay, this is a person who helps bring in, the Baptist church and services there, he counseled the minister, keep checking the list.
GUILFOYLE: He hit all the checkpoints to make sure to accomplish his goal. When you talk about the monetary, you know, compensation and what he might get -- this feeds him if he's going to get that kind of notoriety and attention even if he's going to have to turn the money over, it satiate him in a whole other way in terms of his narcissistic tendencies and sociopathic to get that kind of attention. That's paying himself and feeding the beast.
GUTFELD: So, that's in a way another form of discrimination. If you're a criminal and you lead a model life in prison, but you aren't religious, you discriminating against people who aren't religious. So, therefore, it helps you to be either a Buddhist, Christian, or a Muslim in jail.
GUILFOYLE: That's correct.
GUTFELD: That's discrimination against people who aren't religious, different part of the story. Jesse, how should the public treat him?
WATTERS: I think you're exactly right. You said the other day it's going to be the OJ selfie is going to be the new selfie of the day, that's unfortunate.
WATTERS: I think O.J. is a drug and America needs its fix.
WATTERS: The crime of the century is still so intoxicating. You have every ingredient to the perfect drama or trauma to most people. You have fame, you have celebrity, you have jealousy, you have rage, you have athletics, you have justice or injustice and you have someone like O.J. Simpson who comes out, and you said it Greg, the man is so charismatic, he's so engaging, he's funny he draws you in. But in a way it's very manipulating. Because he's also incredibly delusional, you see the eyes darting around, you seem twitching a little bit, you saw the flash of anger.
WATTERS: When you kind of, yes, he flashed his temper. So, he says, you know, I lived a conflict free life, no you didn't. He said, you know, I was never accused of wielding a weapon against anybody. What about the knife at Rockingham?
WATTERS: He says, he almost felt like justified in getting his memorabilia back which is insane. So, I think he was obviously over sentenced for this first burglary because the judge wanted him to pay the price for skating on the double homicide but now I feel bad for Nicole Brown Simpson's family, I feel bad for the Goldman family, this opens up an incredible amount of new wounds, and he's going to go out there and try to shield his ass.
And do whatever he can. But I think there is going to be a new chapter in the life of O.J., because I don't see O.J. riding off into the sunset in Florida, I don't think you can help himself. I think he doesn't have any impulse control, they're going to be looking to push his buttons and anything can happen.
WILLIAMS: But you know what, I think he is reviled in this country in so many quarters including the Hollywood elite, the fancy crowds. You know --
WATTERS: Well, he's lost them.
WILLIAMS: That's right. That's what I think. He's lost them.
GUILFOYLE: He doesn't need the fancy Hollywood elites, just wait and see what happens.
GUTFELD: Look, I bet he could pay off the family in three years, but the way, either with pay-per-view appearances, because it was about 35 or 40 million?
WILLIAMS: No, that's up to 50.
GUTFELD: It's up to 50 million?
WATTERS: He could do a live confession.
GUTFELD: Yes. He could do a live confession. Exactly. Reality show ideas, living with O.J. He could move into people's homes --
WILLIAMS: Oh, God!
GUTFELD: Offer advice. But he could do find the real killer. Reality show detectives where he searches for killers, how about that?
Anyway, the President sets a redline for Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, and Mueller has reportedly crossed -- what the controversy when THE FIVE returns.
KIMBERLY GUIFOYLE, THE FIVE CO-HOST: In a new exclusive interview with the New York Times, President Trump delivered this morning to special prosecutor Robert Mueller.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNINDENTIFIED MALE: If Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia, is that a red line?
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge be?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would say yeah. I would say yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP) GUIFOYLE: Mueller would cross his red line if he were to investigate the president's finances. That line appears to have been crossed. Bloomberg reports Mueller expanded the Russia investigation to include Mr. Trump's business transactions. In addition, the Wall Street Journal says the special counsel is also investigating possible money laundering by former campaign chair Paul Manafort. Dana, these are developments breaking this evening as we speak.
DANA PERINO, THE FIVE CO-HOST: This show is breaking so much news I can barely keep up.
PERINO: We just found out that President Trump also -- his lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, this story just out from the Washington Post. Also, the other thing that happened is -- great guy, Mark Corralo, who was a spokesperson and longtime Washington aid, who is probably one of the best legal P.R. people that you can have on your site, he's resigned today. He did not respond to a request for comments as to why. So there's a lot of movement of foot there. There's a new team led by Ty Cobb. The one thing I think it's curious about this, I don't understand how this is President Trump red line to make, the justice department's May 17th order that instructs Mueller to investigate any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign, as well as any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.
That is a relatively broad mandate, but it is the mandate that he was given. And all investigation has to do with me money. Remember when Mueller was first putting together his team. There was a lot of consternation by the Trump team saying these are all financial investigators. This is not appropriate, but that was about three months ago. So there must be something happening, something afoot to the lawyers are being contacted or being asked questions that make them think this is the direction that they're headed. And the Manafort piece I think is really interesting and probably the clue. Remember, President Trump said, if it was one of my satellites, that's fine, you go after him, but it wasn't me. And so that could be.
GUIFOYLE: Do you think that's.
PERINO: Maybe. I don't really know, but that's kind of a clue.
GUIFOYLE: It sounded like he did. It was impressive. Ok. Jesse.
JESSE WATTERS, THE FIVE CO-HOST: The investigation is going off the rails. It's going off the rails pretty quickly. I think everything that people fear was going to happen about having a special prosecutor taking on the life of its own is now happening. What are they really looking into, that Trump sold a mansion in Florida? Bought it for $40 million, sold it for $90 million? The guy made a ton of money, is making money criminal?
WATTERS: He sold an apartment to a Russian at Trump Tower? OK, so the guy is not KGB, who cares. He made money at a beauty pageant in Moscow? Was the pageant rigged? I don't see the scandal here. It's not a crime to make money. If it was a crime to make money, you know, locked Trump up next to Hillary. It looks like the investigators are not investigating the crime, they're trying to look for a crime, and then they're going backwards. And, you know, the fact that the Trump organization is now allegedly being investigated and the Clinton Foundation is not, really, really scares me.
GUIFOYLE: How do you explain this, Juan?
JUAN WILLIAMS, THE FIVE CO-HOST: I don't think I need to explain this. I think it's pretty obvious that you get someone like Paul Manafort, and stories in the last few days have indicated that Manafort had like a $70 million debt to people tied to the Russian government at the time that he was the campaign manager for Trump. So they had leverage over him potentially. And when it comes to these real estate dealings, again, the issue here is money laundering. So Jesse makes the point, Trump's in the business of real estate, he sells, what's the big deal? Well, is he selling at market value, or is he helping Russians launder money through the United States.
WATTERS: He sold them mansions for $90 million.
WILLIAMS: I don't know.
WATTERS: It seems a little pricey. I don't think the guy is getting a deal for $90 million.
WILLIAMS: That's the point. What if the guy, in fact, is putting money in because he's trying to wash or launder the money?
WILLIAMS: Here's the thing. So, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said today at the White House, at this moment the president had no intent to fire Robert Mueller. Boy, that set off alarms because what do you mean at this moment no intent? Because he really doesn't have the capacity.
WILLIAMS: She should say is that we care about the integrity of this investigation. Donald Trump, the president, has done nothing wrong, and let Mr. Mueller conduct his investigation. Instead, he's out now -- this is two days in a row. First, he puts Sessions on the record and say, you know what, I didn't like that you recused. He said Rosenstein is from Baltimore, where the Democrats -- only democrats. He's putting -- it's like he has no regard for law and order in the process, and he thinks he can talk his way out of this.
WATTERS: Kind of like Hillary.
WILLIAMS: Oh, please.
GUIFOYLE: Not like that. OK, Greg.
GREG GUTFELD, THE FIVE CO-HOST: Well, here's the issue. Not every place is like the United States, and if you're looking for corruption in Russia it's like looking for lint in a laundromat. It's the way it is right now. It's going to take a couple of decades, and perhaps longer before it's not a lawless place. I mean, it's deadwood meets west world, anything could happen, you could die there in a business transaction. So when you go to work in Russia you've got to deal with certain things. The same way, Hillary, when she took money, she took money from places that are, you know, their prime turf is human rights abuses. So she took money from places that abuse people. In Russia, they're dealing like the old west. The thing that also gets me mad is how the media reports and the stuff about Trump. It's like, Trump rages, Trump fumes, Trump slams Sessions. They all share the same word a day calendar. But then, whenever a liberal goes off whether it's Schumer, or Maxine Waters, or Tim Perez, they never say they're raging. They're always saying they're destroying. They're crushing it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. So to you, America, could decide who the liars really are, will be right back.
GUIFOYLE: Oh, my God. All right. Well, clearly needed communications overhaul, I think we can concur on that.
GUTFELD: I disagree.
GUIFOYLE: . so let's looked for it. Some new positive developments, indeed, on the Trump administration fight against illegal immigration, stay with us.
WATTERS: Welcome back. A very positive progress reports from our homeland security secretary on the number of crossings now at the Mexican border.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What we're doing now is doing the best we can to stop the illegal movement of things and people into the United States. The movement of illegal aliens across the border in the last six months or so, but certainly post 20 January is down by 70 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP) WATTERS: Seventy percent, Gutfeld, what have you been saying for quite some time?
GUTFELD: Actually, it was you, Dana.
PERINO: That Trump is the wall.
WATTERS: Yes, he is the fourth wall.
GUTFELD: She was the first person to say that, I believe.
PERINO: I know you were the second.
GUTFELD: The point is -- he has caused two changes, to rethink the issue. The issue used to be about amnesty, now it's about borders. So everybody is move in the discussion. And it's about saving lives, when you reduce human trafficking, you save lives. The question is if he is indeed the wall, as Dana had said, how permanent can this effect be because, you know, when he leaves office, then the wall leaves. So he has to create permanent ideas, he has to create a structure, he has to create a new policy, new procedures that reflect the new reality, so when he leaves these things are in place.
WATTERS: And Kimberly, also, interior enforcement. They're just wrapping up these MS-13 gang members like on a record pace right now, which is fantastic, because there're wreaking havoc all over the country.
GUIFOYLE: Well, I couldn't be happier about this. And just to understand the impact -- and also, I think the turning effect in terms of the other gangs that have tried to make gang territory and access and moved into that space, understand what the repercussions are going to be. And he said that he was going to do this, he acted very quickly and decisively, it really takes a big chunk out of crime, violent crime in this country, and on children that are taking into these gangs, and jump in, and co-opted, and taught a life of violence by kind of replacing the father figures. This is so important and such a big piece, and that's why I think we talk about it so much on the show.
And in addition to the fact that President Trump -- yeah, he's got to build his structure, but he is also, literally himself, operating as the deterrent for people to try to come in because they don't want to mess around with him. Why is this a bad thing? We don't want people coming in and putting their families in jeopardy, and rewarding the coyotes and the people that are taking the money, make a big mess for us. It's a mess over there, too.
WATTERS: And Juan, they're sending a surge of ICE agents into some of these sanctuaries cities to round up these criminal illegal aliens. It's probably a good idea, wouldn't you agree?
WILLIAMS: Well, what we know is that it's 40 percent jump already, apparently, in arrests, in the United States, not talking about the borders. And what we know is that most of these arrests are not for people who have committed any crime, and certainly not violent crimes.
WILLIAMS: What we're talking about.
WATTERS: That's not true, Juan.
WILLIAMS: It's simply is true. And what we're talking about then, is President Trump going after immigrants and the whole idea of illegal immigrants in specific, in a very aggressively was as a political matter. But it's hurting people, hurting families.
GUTFELD: So MS-13, are they at ARP?
WILLIAMS: No. I think if you're talking about crimes -- if you're talking about violent criminals, I don't think you get any argument across the political.
WATTERS: You want to keep violent criminals safe in sanctuary cities. That's your position.
WILLIAMS: Get out of town. I was responding to something Greg said that I thought was really serious, which is if you are saying, oh, I'm so much a supporter of immigrants, I'm going to tolerate crime and criminals and violent people, no, nobody.
GUIFOYLE: Juan, they're actually arresting criminals inside the courthouse. I will stand up and do the way because as a prosecutor, I sat there and watched people.
GUIFOYLE: . in San Francisco and other places which is disgusting because they get back out to reoffend.
GUIFOYLE: No, that's saving families.
WILLIAMS: The momentum behind the political, the politics that he set in motion is not going after the dreamers kids. And he's saying -- I think dreamers should be able to stay.
WATTERS: Seems like Juan wants to lock up President Trump and let these illegal aliens criminal.
WATTERS: I'm just teasing. Dana, last word? PERINO: Well, I do think that the president should ask the Supreme Court for expedited review on the sanctuary city issue. It is currently in federal court in California. If they got into the Supreme Court this could get some clarity on this, and we could probably save a lot of lives. And just get clarity for people in law enforcement and these families that are trying to figure it out.
(CROSSTALK) WATTERS: Up next, CNN, O.J. Simpson, and Donald Trump, the story up ahead.
WILLIAMS: There's a lot of wild things said on CNN Daily about President Trump. Well, add this one to the list.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: This is not your typical presidents.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: He is. O.J. Simpson is a different kind of football player. That doesn't make him a better person, it doesn't make Mr. Trump a better president.
(END VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: So Kimberly.
WILLIAMS: Americans, generally, don't have a high opinion of Mr. Simpson, and here's an analogy to Mr. Trump, is that unfair? Well, no, because earlier you were saying someone who has impulse control.
GUIFOYLE: No, no, no, no. You're not doing that to me. You're not going to say that I am in anyway is suggesting that the two are similar because that is just completely wrong.
WILLIAMS: No, no, no. You didn't say that.
GUIFOYLE: No, but you're trying to make that just by saying.
WILLIAMS: No, I'm just saying, impulse, narcissism.
GUIFOYLE: I've never said that about the president.
WILLIAMS: Is that fair?
GUIFOYLE: I think it's grossly unfair, it's more appetite and lust from the media, and these morons that try to make this whole thing to like this disparage the president, disparage everything about the American presidency because they don't like President Trump.
WILLIAMS: There you go. That's what I thought you'd say. Is there any validity to the celebrity angle, Jesse?
WATTERS: I think if Trump is the O.J. of politics, then Hillary is the Marsha Clark because she blew it when she had a sure thing going.
WILLIAMS: That was good.
WATTERS: Thank you. If this goes back to what we're talking about earlier in the week, when you compare your opponents to murderers, or Nazi's, or 9/11, you've lost the argument.
WILLIAMS: So, Dana, Nazi's?
PERINO: Well, I think what you see here is people -- especially on cable news, on this channel or elsewhere, you try to say the most provocative thing so that you can fire up your base, get us back to come on the show so that you can try to get people to continue watching. I don't think it's very good for civil discourse, and this is a comparison that was really beyond the pale.
GUIFOYLE: Thank you.
WILLIAMS: So what do you say, Greg.
GUTFELD: Well, you know, Paul Begala, he's not your usual pundit, but neither it was Jared, your usual spokesperson for Subway. I'm not saying that he's just like a Jared from Subway, but maybe I am. Look, this is a step up for Donald Trump, it was only six months ago he was being compared to Hitler. Now he's just a double killer. I have a list of people they compared Donald Trump to, Hitler, Richard the second, terrorists, Charlie Sheen, the joker, Lex Luther, Putin, Al Capone, Mussolini, Stalin, Lord Voldemort, Charlemagne, my favorite, Biff Tannen. Biff Tannen, from Back to the Future.
WATTERS: With Mussolini and.
GUTFELD: I did it.
WILLIAMS: All right. We're having too much fun. One more thing, up next.
PERINO: It's time now for one more thing, Greg.
GUTFELD: Let's go to this, shall we? Greg's robot news. All right, you know, I'm going to be off all next week. I'm going on a nice little vacation. We've got next Friday. But, actually, because I talk about robots so much, this robot heard the news and he threw himself into a nearby indoor fountain. This is in D.C., a security robots, so unhappy about me being off The Five, flung himself -- flung himself into the fountain, he could not swim. By the way, I think he's faking it, all the robots are pretending to be incompetent so they can take over one day by surprise.
PERINO: It gives you a lot to think about on your trip. All right, Jesse.
WATTERS: All right. So the other day, Joy Behar announced that she named her new dog after Bernie Sanders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want you to meet my new dog and I name him Bernie, after you.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you happy with the name, Bernie, what do you think?
BERNIE SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR: Oh, looks like a very smart dog to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP) WATTERS: A socialist dog, Gutfeld.
GUTFELD: Yeah, he'll spread the filth around.
(LAUGHTER) PERINO: You chicken.
GUTFELD: I was going to say poop, but I said filth. Spread the poop around.
PERINO: That's much better. OK, Juan.
WILLIAMS: So guess what, Jesse? More Bernie news because the other day -- I've got a real surprise, the question put to me was who's the most popular politician in America these day, and guess what? It's none other than Bernie Sanders. And now, a brand-new 2020 election poll shows that Trump would lose in a matchup against a bunch of Democrats, according to polls he'd lose to both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren if the election were held today. But get this, who else would he lose to? Bernie Sanders would beat Trump 52-39. I find this unbelievable.
GUTFELD: Let them go with it.
PERINO: K.G.? GUIFOYLE: OK. I have a very sweet one more thing. So a young boy suffering from a rare disease got to live out his dream of being a police officer, this was after the Wildwood Police Department in New Jersey, swore him in as an honorary, went on Monday. There he is, 9-year-old, Ethan Crannigan, he has a rare clot disorder caused by a genetic mutation, it only affects one in ten million people, and one of the effects and, unfortunately, leaves him visually impaired. So God bless this police department. It's a very special moment for this boy, an incredible act of kindness for him and his family. And he loves the police so much he has a growing collection of little police patches that he collects during his life so far. So anybody that wants to send him a patch, if you can please do so at lunch with lynch.com.
PERINO: I love that. All right. So this article caught my eye today, it was on NPR. It say, say goodbye to X and Y, should community colleges abolish algebra. Why? Because algebra is the most failed course in community colleges nationwide, 60 percent of students enrolled in American community colleges are required to take one math course, and about 80 percent never finish their requirements. So I asked on twitter, what do you think about this? And I thought this was really smart because I believe you use algebra every day, for logic and reasoning. And here's Adam Jay, he says I use it every day, I'm a janitor in a community college, you want roundtables for a 115 people to table, so hold six chairs, how many tables? He's exactly right. And, you know, some people think that algebra is terrible, but it's actually has worked. Let's keep it. Set your DVRs and never miss an episode of "The Five." And "Hannity" is up next.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.