Russia probe clouds Trump's '500 days of American greatness'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," June 4, 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 Kimberly Guilfoyle, Juan Williams, Dana Perino, and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

It's a big day at the White House as President Trump marks 500 days in office by touting his accomplishments. The economy is booming, the North Korea summit is back on, and the president has rebuilt the military. But, the dark cloud of the special counsel Russia probe continues to hang over his head. This weekend, someone leaked a 20 page letter the president's legal team wrote back in January to Mueller's lawyers. It argues that President Trump cannot possibly commit obstruction of justice and that he has the broad authority to pardon himself. This morning, Trump tweeted he has the right to pardon himself but wouldn't because he's done nothing wrong. This comes after the president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in interviews the president might have the authority to pardon himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Do you and the president's attorneys believe the president has the power to pardon himself.

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: He's not, but he probably does. He has no intention of pardoning himself, but he probably does. It's an interesting constitutional argument. Can the president pardon himself?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: The White House is also addressing this issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The president said if I have an absolute right to pardon myself. Why does he think that and does he also agree with Rudy Giuliani, his lawyer, that a pardon for himself would be unthinkable and would lead to immediate impeachment?

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Thankfully the president hasn't done anything wrong and wouldn't have any need for a pardon.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Does the president believe that he is above the law?

SANDERS: Certainly not. The president hasn't done anything wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: All right. So, 500 days, Greg. I think a fair assessment, whether you agree with his policies or not. He has accomplished quite a bit.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I like to think of it as the fifth anniversary of his first 100 days. A lot of stuff is happening in 500 days, but I'm not talking about the White House. I'm actually talking about your life. The key is, life went on for everybody for this 500 days. And even a Trump critic has to admit that your life either stayed the same or it got marginally to dramatically better. That's pretty much the options here but it didn't implode, because according to the predictions, by now we would have had a civil war. We would have had a nuclear war. We would have had a depression, perhaps asteroids would have hit.

So, the point is, we have had peaceful prosperity, life went merrily on. And, if people just step outside their emotional bubble they'll see this is a pretty good age to be in right now. And your biggest problem you have is a president that drives you crazy because you don't like his personality. But you have prosperity, you have low unemployment, you have a strong economy, you have no ISIS, you have -- perhaps, North Korea actually becoming part of the world. Imagine if there was bad news. Imagine is there was bad news how the media -- the media is already in a constant meltdown with good news. I mean, imagine if things were actually bad. I mean, they would be -- we would have to institutionalize all of them, they'll be going crazy.

WATTERS: All right. So, Juan, are you sick of all the winning?

(CROSSTALK)

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Yes. You know this winning is just killing me. I mean, he's so popular. I mean, stunningly popular. You know, he's not popular with the general populace, but he's very popular with Republicans. And I think that's what's keeping him afloat. So, Greg says -- you know, everything is just great, so much accomplished -- you know, but I think this is a president who worries people.

I think that's why people are concerned about him. And if you look at the accomplishment, his number one accomplishment I saw in the White House release was the tax cuts. And, of course, Republicans don't even think they can run on tax cuts in the fall because they just haven't proven to be that popular. The second one I guess is putting a conservative, Neil Gorsuch, on the Supreme Court.

And I would say hats off. You guys won that one, but I would give the credit to Mitch McConnell who saved that seat from Merrick Garland. And if you look at the rest of it, well, even on the tax cut, the deficit continues to rise incredibly, and no progress on infrastructure which was a key promise. I could go on, but, you know what, I think if you want.

WATTERS: Please don't go on.

WILLIAMS: It feels to me like you guys say 500 days. It feels to me like, wow, 500 years.

WATTERS: Well, it looks like it, Juan.

WILLIAMS: I know.

(LAUGHTER)

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: And Juan had a week off.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Yes. He's so exhausted from winning he's like he had to take a week off.

WILLIAMS: I mean, the one that really gets me is the immigration stuff, but we'll talk about it later. But immigration and kids.

WATTERS: I understand. And we will get to that. Kimberly, the pardon situation, legally that might have been some gamesmanship. It looks like he got set up, Rudy Giuliani, on the question, didn't really know what to say there. How do you see the whole pardon thing playing out today?

GUILFOYLE: Yes, I think you're right because you look at the nuance there Rudy kind of say, well, it poses an interesting constitutional, you know, question. Can the president pardon himself? I mean, well, then the president followed up with a tweet saying, in fact, that he can. So perhaps he then spoke to someone said, ah, you're safe to go ahead, you know, and tweet that.

Who knows? But, nevertheless, you don't even want to get to that point, right? You don't want to even suggest that that would be even necessary that the president would have to do that. You would just say, OK, I've done nothing wrong, so I actually don't even have to get to the question of whether or not I can pardon myself because there will be nothing on the merits to suggest any kind of criminality on my part.

That's the messaging that I would stick with and stick with that position because that's, in fact, what he believes and he knows the facts and what transpired better than anybody, you know, in terms of what's gone on. And then, of course, being advised by his counsel with what's gone on. That's kind of probably the way to stick with it because if you saw the press corps then was saying does the president think he's above the law?

WATTERS: What a question.

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

WATTERS: . that was.

GUILFOYLE: You want to also kind of switch the discussion, like Dana said, give them the points to kind of talk about and drive the messaging, talk about the economy, sort of the Trump's golden age of the economy in terms of job numbers and things like that, and not discussing the whole criminality issue.

WATTERS: Yes, to bring up the P-word, unprompted, on the day where.

PERINO: You mean pardon.

WATTERS: Yes, that's what I meant, obviously.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: In a day where everybody was talking about Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky thing.

GUTFELD: That's a different P-word.

WATTERS: And he drove -- yes, thank you, Greg. He drove that out of the news cycle and now everyone is talking about pardon.

PERINO: Well, the White House brings this on themselves a little bit. So, the president's tweets are driving the new cycle, so when he's tweeting about it, you can bet that's what people are going to talk about. So, if you only want people to talk about all of these good things, tweet only about those good things, and that would be helpful. I do think it's interesting that, you know, you have this Republican congress for two years. Five months from tomorrow is the midterm. And, right after that, immediately the day after, you start the 2020 election. And I think what is so interesting is that the Democrats.

(CROSSTALK)

GUILFOYLE: Here we go again.

PERINO: But the Democrats are so befuddled at this point, because what do you do? As Greg was pointing out, all these good news things -- if all of these good news point had happened during the Obama administration, they would have touted them too. And it could be that the Democrats are going to have to just use this time to step back and sit. Politics is timing, so Regroup.

You've got to fill out those ranks out in the states because that was all depleted during the Obama administration. And figure out a way to try to at least get through the midterms, if they could flip the house, we'll see. I think it's really -- I guess it's 50/50 at this point, and Republicans looking so much stronger.

So, the Democrats have spent 500 days not figuring out how they lost in 2016, which means that they are behind in figuring that out because 2020 is going to be here like before you know it. And I don't see how the roaring economy changes. I don't see how the foreign policy position changes in 2020. Unless there's some catastrophic event, which hopefully there is not, but we are better positioned to deal with.

In the meantime, parties change, they evolve. Obviously, that's what's happening with the Republican Party, but the Republican Party has gone -- done that. That, I think, is pretty much over. And so, the Democrats are the ones now that are in a position of figuring out who are we, what are we're going to be?

WATTERS: Yes, they might have to reinvent themselves.

GUTFELD: Let's hope so. You know, the Democrats have an advantage in that they're out of power. And when you're out of power you have all the time in the world to get back into power. That's what you're supposed to do. That's why, you know, Carter was a reaction to Nixon. Reagan was a reaction to Carter. Everyone is a reaction to somebody else. But the problem is they've spent the last two years in a tantrum. They've blown all this time. I don't even think they've found anyone, a potential.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: What would be the reaction to Donald Trump? Could you imagine what the opposite of Donald Trump?

GUTFELD: No, but that's a very good point.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: No, but I'm saying it would be somebody incredibly left-wing, because you always see the pendulum shift. And if -- they might try -- like he's undoing everything Obama did. The next one is going to try to undo everything Trump did.

WATTERS: Right. The opposite of Trump, probably, is a female, Hispanic, very polite librarian.

WILLIAMS: No, no. The thing is -- I think that you're right. The pendulum swings. But remember, if a Democrat was doing what Trump is doing, let's say, you know, this weekend is part of this business about he can pardon himself. It came out that in that letter it was acknowledged that, in fact, he had dictated this letter about Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower with this Russian lawyer.

And, we had heard from the Trump officials that that wasn't true, repeatedly, from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Jay Sekulow, and others. So, now it comes out that we were lied to. And I just think if Obama did something like that, Jesse, I think you would be standing on this table, brother. You would be screaming about Obama.

GUTFELD: That lie is not even close to Benghazi.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: Blame it on a movie.

WATTERS: He lied about a letter, not dead ambassadors.

WILLIAMS: Oh, stop. So, my sense is that we have here a situation where the Republican Party has consolidated around Trump, or Trump has made the Republican Party into the Trump party. That's the big change in the first 500 days.

GUTFELD: Well, you know, you say -- the Democrat Party became the Obama party.

WILLIAMS: I don't think that's the case at all.

WATTERS: And what happened under Obama's leadership they were, as you've said, decimated on the state and local.

GUILFOYLE: Real quick in terms of the, you know, accomplishments of the first 500 days is there are considerable, especially if it relates to the economy. And you saw people really having a difficult time going against President Bill Clinton when the economy and the numbers were good. So, what is the antithesis of that? To undo the economic numbers to -- you know, undo jobs, raise unemployment -- right, this is the point. Hey, ISIS, come back in.

(CROSSTALK)

GUILFOYLE: They need a candidate to try to bring something forward, some kind of messaging.

WILLIAMS: I don't think it's the opposite. I think it's the, kind of, the polar political.

GUILFOYLE: So then, that's a Kamala Harris.

WILLIAMS: . who looks like Trump. And you know who that is? Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders.

GUILFOYLE: They've already tried that.

GUTFELD: Old white guy, Juan. Why is it always a old white guy?

WILLIAMS: The tax cut benefited the rich. Bernie Sanders would say tax cuts that benefit working-class people.

GUTFELD: Not the rich in California and New York.

WILLIAMS: . health care, education for young people.

GUILFOYLE: I think you're looking at somebody like a Kamala Harris, a strong candidate like that.

WILLIAMS: You mean a woman.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, absolutely. But, also, in terms of what she's stands for, and somebody who isn't, you know, the same candidate ran before run through, you know, the rinse cycle one more time.

WATTERS: Juan is still feeling the burn after 500 days.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: The media's obsession over the first lady's recent whereabouts hits overdrive. Greg's got the detail, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: Yesterday, CNN once again became that nosy, detestable neighbor Gladys from "Bewitched," who gins up phony concern only to spread malicious gossip about the first lady's whereabouts. Check out this tweet from our nation's hall monitor Brian Stelter: "If any first lady disappeared, you'd want to know where she is." See what he did there? To justify the odious premise, he first had to create the premise, if any first lady disappeared. And so begins a Trojan horse for a ghoulish game all to push a phony CNN segment. See, instead of saying is Melania missing? They pitched their segment as how the media is covering Melania's absence. So, they're covering how they're covering it. I guess we should cover how they're covering how they're covering it:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN: One thing the president -- the White House has been quite quiet about is Melania Trump and her status. We did see her tweet the other day. But the first time we caught a glimpse of her -- the last time we caught a glimpse of her was on May 10th.

DAVID ZURAWIK, BALTIMORE SUN: I wonder if somebody is guiding that kind of tweet from her. That doesn't seem like her, at least the image she's had in her engagement with the press.

LYNN SWEET, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: If the first lady or the person who is standing in for the first lady disappears, you want to know where she is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: Clowns.

GUILFOYLE: So crazy.

GUTFELD: They even had a chart. How sophisticated. And so, the speculation fueled endless guessing games on Twitter. The pleasure many found in hoping something was wrong with the first lady and then cloaking it at some kind of concern, dwarfs any of the jokes with the C-word.

CNN, Huffington, Newsweek -- Trump has deranged these ghouls to a point that they barely have any humanity left. Just when you think you hit the bottom of the cesspool, more cesspool. Some even suggested that Trump beat Melania.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God.

GUTFELD: Trapped in their own prison of pain since 2016, their misery only seeks company. I swear, Jeff Zucker must be spinning in his grave, if he wasn't alive and well, or is he? Has anyone seen him? See what I did there?

Dana, this is what people do on Sundays. I mean, there are actually people sitting around tweeting about if Trump beats -- has Trump beat Melania.

PERINO: That is really gross.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: And these are.

GUTFELD: Some are conservatives.

PERINO: Remember when the media was really upset about any questions about Hillary Clinton's health during the campaign, and that was out of bounds. But there was.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: . actually, she did faint.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: Right. When she was trying to get into that van and that was out of bound. And she wanted to be the President of the United States. The first lady -- she's not an elected person. She can do whatever she wants. I hope that she's well. And it would be more believable if they really cared how she was.

GUTFELD: Yes, Yes, I don't think they care. That's the thing that gets me, Jesse, is the camouflage.

WATTERS: Right.

GUTFELD: We're just, you know, we're just worried about her. No, you're not. You don't even like her.

WATTERS: Yes. Last week they were making all sorts of disgusting commentary, now they're so concerned about her health. The media spending more time wondering where Melania is and not wondering where ISIS is. Don't you think they'd spill some ink over that? I mean, Trump made ISIS disappear. Melania hasn't gone anywhere. Let's focus on that. Peter Strzok went missing. They haven't shoved a camera in Peter Strzok's face.

It would seems like the media might want to get some answers about his whereabouts. She had kidney surgery three weeks ago. It's an incredibly invasive and delicate procedure. I'm sure she wants to come back on her own terms at her own time, and that's fine. But, Trump's marriages have always been subject to tabloid fodder. People fodder, they speculate. You know it's good ink. People profit off of it. It's good for clips.

And she's not the most -- you know, she doesn't speak a lot publicly. So there's a vacuum there, and she doesn't have a robust P.R. machine. So, they fill the void with these speculations and the narratives that have no connection to reality. And I think it just shows the disrespect to the first family. Last time it was Ivanka, then Melania this week. You know, they don't respect them like they used to anymore.

GUTFELD: You know, Juan, is this just another example of having -- because there's so much good news, you've got to go after the first lady because she might be recuperating or maybe she just likes to do whatever the hell she wants.

(CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: I don't know. I don't follow twitter the way you do. But I don't know that there's any antipathy toward her. I just haven't seen that.

GUTFELD: They made fun of her accent, remember.

WILLIAMS: No, no, people have said that. And I think people have questioned, you know, her health, you know, because they didn't know much about this, and now subsequently. But anybody who is sick, I mean, you have to have some sympathy for them. The big question here is she's supposed to have an event today, I think it's for gold star families, and they've closed it to the press. So, at some point, when you're in power and you start to keep the press out, the press is like, hey, hey, hey, what's going on? And I think that's what you're getting. But you want to attack the press for this? I just think, you know what, if the White House was transparent and said, you know what, the lady is 48, she had surgery, and she wants to have a rest period. I think everybody in America would say God bless her. I hope she's recovering well.

GUTFELD: You haven't looked at the tweets.

WILLIAMS: I have.

GUTFELD: They talked about her getting beaten up.

WILLIAMS: I don't know -- why is anybody even saying that?

GUTFELD: Oh, because they're awful people, and I won't even mention their names because they're beneath -- they will not be mentioned on The Five, but you can look them up. Kimberly?

GUILFOYLE: Yes, I just think it's really disrespectful. Obviously, this was a serious, you know, medical condition. She had to get this kidney embolization, it was at Walter Reed. Perhaps she needs some time to be able to recover and get back on her feet. You know, she has a very stressful job because she's not treated well in the press to begin with.

So there's an emotional, psychological strain to begin with, and now a physical toll on her body. And she's, you know, a mother of a young son, and so she's going to spend time as well with him, quite worried about, you know, his mom. So, what is the point that they acted like she was like a missing person thing? This is crazy.

GUTFELD: This White House is the most transparent thing in the history of history. I mean, we know everything.

PERINO: Well, they make it -- they make fun of it for being like a reality show.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: But then, when they think like this is part of the act, right? Like, oh, they're hiding Melania from you so you can't see her. So now, that has to become part of the story line or something.

GUILFOYLE: And saying that they're concern, when they're not actually concerned at all. If they cared, they would respect privacy and let her get better instead of making a mockery of it like she's a missing persons alert on a milk carton.

GUTFELD: All right, coming up, Bill Clinton, he could have been the first lady, creating new controversies with his comments on Monica, the media, and more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: Twenty years after the scandal that led to his impeachment, Bill Clinton ignites a new controversy. While responding to questions about his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the wake of the Me Too Movement, the former president makes a surprising revelation during the contentious interview on The Today Show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever apologize?

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: And -- no, yes. And nobody believes that I got of that for free. I left the White House $16 million in debt. But, you typically have ignored gaping facts in discovering this. And I bet you don't even know them.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I asked if you ever apologize and you've said you have.

CLINTON: I have.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You apologize to her.

CLINTON: I apologize to everybody in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PERINO: All right. So, Greg, it's 20 years and not a day has gone by that you have not thought about or talked about the Clintons. Well, not just you, I mean all of us.

GUTFELD: What did he expect on this book tour? The questions are going to be about his breezy beach read, his writer's process? I mean, if Anthony Weiner came out with a cookbook, do you think all the questions are going to be about the risotto? Of course, not. It's going to be about what you're going to be known for, for the rest of your life. Look, I'd love to move on. Everybody would love to move on, but you can't move on if the Clintons don't move on.

If the Clintons are still in the public consciousness, then we have every reason to go to you. Remember that, 20 years ago? And I do agree with him on one point, he got away with a lot of things, a lot of things. I don't think he got away with Monica, because I think that he would be known forever for that thing. That's a scar on his life, and the lies he told after. But there were other things that he got away with that the media doesn't question.

PERINO: So, do you think this, Juan, that this book would have been a number one -- the book is a collaboration with James Patterson. James Patterson had to do after the show-show taping today because The Briefing. So, he was on today, they did this collaboration, James Patterson has sold 300 million books around the world. This book would have been a best seller even if Bill Clinton didn't do any interviews, but they decided to do it. So, you probably can't be surprised by the questions.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I'm not sure if he's surprised because, I mean, I think the interviewers are just being thorough. And, I think, it clearly, it's been in the news and there's so much sexual scandal, hashtag Me Too. Apart from the sexual scandal, Stormy and all the rest, that I don't see how you get away from the question. In fact, hats off -- I guess that was Craig Melvin.

PERINO: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Who was doing the question because it was quite direct. Although, I felt, you know, James Patterson looked like he was a hostage there.

GUILFOYLE: I know. He wants to crawl back.

PERINO: I'm just the author.

WILLIAMS: But, I might say, so Clinton goes on to add, Dana, he says, you know, if this was a Democrat in the oval office right now the impeachment proceedings would already be underway. So, he fires back and says, hey, don't forget I did pay a price, even Greg says that's the case. And, if it was today, he thinks that somehow Trump is not paying that price.

PERINO: Well, Jesse, is part of that, though, the decision that the Democrats made in the 1990s for how to deal with Bill Clinton?

WATTERS: Right. I mean, I just can't believe you have one president comparing his affair with another president's affair or alleged affair. It's ridiculous. And he's playing the victim the whole time. Like, "I've got a lot of debt with the lawyers after that after that sexual escapade."

It's typical Bill Clinton. He gets defensive. The deference, he didn't receive the deference that he expected. Almost took him by surprise.

I don't think Bill Clinton could have survived if this had happened in 2018, for so many reasons. The Clinton war room, the way it went into overdrive against Lewinsky on a personal level. They never would've gotten away with that any more.

PERINO: But part of that, though, Kimberly --

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

PERINO: -- don't you think one of the reasons that 2018 is the way it is, is because of the story line that kicked off in 1998. And 20 years later, the #MeToo movement is a part of it. But I think it's been one long story building up until this moment.

And the other thing I wanted to ask you is Craig Melvin asked Bill Clinton, "Did you apologize to Monica Lewinsky?"

And he says, "I apologized to everyone." But this issue still is a sticky -- sticking point --

GUTFELD: Well, there were a lot of women.

PERINO: -- for them. But Lewinsky is what we're talking about.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, without listing them all.

GUTFELD: Everyone was, like --

GUILFOYLE: Going through, "And I just want to apologize. I want to thank you for the question."

Yes, it's tough, right? He was excited about doing this book and from what everyone is saying, it's supposed to be a very interesting book, especially with killing off the first lady. Interesting there.

But besides that, you know, he's put on the spot for this. But you can tell that he's still resentful even about being asked the question, being put in that situation. He still views himself psychologically as the victim in this case. He's probably still standing by what he -- the narrative that he gave, you know, years ago. Thinking that OK, "Well, listen, why are they coming out on me. I'm being unfairly persecuted. And look at all the debt I've got."

Well, that's like typical narcissistic sentiment that he's engaging in there. So it's not particularly charming. Don't know if it sells any more books for him or poor James Patterson, who wanted to look like -- he looked like he wanted to crawl inside the cover of the book and hide.

But nevertheless, he went out there, and if you're going to go out there, they're going to ask you those questions.

WILLIAMS: Did you say narcissism? Oh, my goodness.

GUTFELD: Can I raise -- I hope Patterson doesn't do another book with Weinstein. Because he's got a poor track record.

What if Hillary had been elected president? Would Bill have been a problem every day? Maybe not. There might not have been a #MeToo movement if Hillary had been elected --

GUILFOYLE: Right.

GUTFELD: -- because Weinstein might have been protected, since he was very close with Hillary.

GUILFOYLE: And deep seat (ph).

GUTFELD: That story never would've come out.

GUILFOYLE: That story, arc, yes.

GUTFELD: No #MeToo. Bill would have been fine. So actually, you should think Trump.

PERINO: If you are interested in the book, if you go to, I think, "The Five's" Facebook page or maybe "The Daily Briefing" or whatever. Twitter, whatever. It's a pretty good interview, and he talks about the book and cyber terrorism. So there is actually a political thriller. Not just the Lewinsky stuff.

OK. A Democratic lawmaker films himself getting turned away from a Texas immigration detention center, but there's a lot more to this story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: As the immigration debate heats up, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkle is accusing the Trump administration of cruelty toward migrant children. This comes after the senator was denied entry to a Texas immigration facility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D), OREGON: Yes. Can I go in with you, please?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, sir, you cannot go in with me. You cannot be here. This is private property.

MERKLEY: My team contacted this facility and asked for permission for me to come and see what is going on inside with these children.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, we don't have any permission. I'm going to have to ask you to go away, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUILFOYLE: Well, senator Merkley has since revealed that he was notified in advance that he would not be allowed in. So is this just a publicity stunt?

Welcome back, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Well, thanks. I don't know if it's a publicity stunt or not. I think there's a legitimate purpose for an American senator, our elected legal -- legally elected representative, to say what's going on here? I want to see how these children are being treated.

But the big story to me, Kimberly, is one that I just find difficult even to, like, control which is you're separating children from their mothers and fathers.

And it's not that these people are just sneaking in. These are people who are seeking legitimate asylum as refugees. So we've never done this as Americans.

So you get a letter from the Democrats saying it's antithetical to American values but also to just plain old basic decency and humanity. And I -- I was stunned. At first, I thought this can't be right, and then I read that John Kelly, the chief of staff, said this is a deterrent that's going to stop people from doing this. But wow. I mean, these people are seeking asylum. And separating children? I just think that's not good.

GUILFOYLE: But this isn't something, Jesse, that is unique to the Trump administration. It is the law on the books, in terms of how people are processed and handled when they come into the country illegally.

WATTERS: It's been the law on the books since the Clinton administration. Trump is actually --

GUILFOYLE: Blame it on Bill.

WATTERS: -- enforcing this policy. It's a zero-tolerance policy if you get caught crossing the southern border, you're going to get prosecuted. And they don't do catch and release as much as they used to.

Juan, if you're a family, and you show up at a legal port of entry in this country, you will not be separated. These are for people that are coming across the southern border in a very dangerous situation.

And you were saying the other day you don't know if these children are being trafficked. You don't know if the father is actually the real father --

GUILFOYLE: Right.

WATTERS: -- of the son or the daughter that you think may be related. You don't know that. So until they make that determination, they separate you.

Also brought up a good point the other day, too, is you're not allowed to put minors in federal penitentiaries.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

WATTERS: You can't just be mixing people of all ages in holding facilities. You put these minors in a temporary shelter, and then you find sponsors for them within the United States, usually with family members. And then their case can be adjudicated, and it usually takes years.

But the point is, the Trump administration is trying to do, one, deter and then treat these children with their uttermost safety and welfare in mind.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely not. But I don't want to dominate the conversation. But I tell you something, to me this is offensive. I don't think you treat children that way. You can deter people. You can say, "We want to change the refugee policy." Fine. But to take a child away from its mother?

GUILFOYLE: Well, you're assuming -- you're assuming facts not in evidence.

WATTERS: Dragging the child across the dangerous southern border is pretty explanatory (ph), too.

GUILFOYLE: Right. I think the problem is that you are assuming facts not in evidence, which is that, in fact, this child is from this parent. We don't know that.

So many times, when I was in court prosecuting cases, you couldn't get anyone's true name or identity. There were 17 aliases. Not in the system. You have a very difficult time trying to find out who is who. You have unaccompanied minors coming over with gang affiliations. You've got to sort it out. You have an obligation for public safety, you know, to do so.

You had someone coming over pretending to be a minor, getting fostered by a family. Turns out he was 22 years old. I mean, it's just crazy.

PERINO: Senator Feinstein, who's in a tough reelection fight. She wants a new law, to revise one that she had sponsored years ago to try to deal with this. I think it should be dealt with, certainly.

And I also feel like -- that the senators, I understand that they want answers and they represent constituents that want answers, and a proper way to do that would be to contact the Department of Homeland Security legislative affairs team. Call them up. They will respond. And make them answer to you, rather than, you know, try to exacerbate it.

GUILFOYLE: OK, perfect. Greg.

GUTFELD: This is happening, because the prison bus for babies lie did not work last week.

WATTERS: Yes.

GUTFELD: So now they're trying to do the prison for babies trick.

If you remember, last week they showed a picture of a bus with little baby seats in it, and they uncalled it the prison bus for babies. It turns out it was for a field trip. So this is desperation.

This started with the lie about 1,500 kids going missing because of Donald Trump. No. Those children arrived without their parents. Without their parents, OK. And so America is trying to do the good thing and place these kids with families and whatnot to keep them safe, and then they, quote, "lost track." Who lost track of who? That's a really good question. It may have been they didn't want to be found, depending on the age and whatever; but they separated themselves.

All this is, and what you're talking about, what Jesse is talking about, is about safety and deterrence.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

GUTFELD: If you have to remove the free -- the free lunch, so that's a deterrence. But you've also got to make sure these kids are safe.

WATTERS: Right.

GUTFELD: So you can't leave the kids with adults in a prison or a detention facility. I mean, it boggles the mind.

WATTERS: You know, if they had commingled them, and there was one crime committed --

GUTFELD: That senator would have been crazy. "You put kids in with creeps (ph)?"

WATTERS: Exactly.

GUTFELD: Bottom line, Donald Trump can totally destroy the Democratic Party, if he has an Oval Office address and presents Donald's DACA, his own path to citizenship. Call it "Donald's DACA." And rely on a simple understanding that you play by the rules, you desire to contribute to this country, you're in. That would destroy the Democratic Party.

WILLIAMS: The Republicans wouldn't even buy his plan, as I recall.

GUTFELD: It sounds to me like it's Trump's party now, Juan. That's what you said.

WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.

GUILFOYLE: Maybe they're going to line up at their cash register, and they're going to buy it.

WILLIAMS: What?

GUILFOYLE: Maybe they're ready to line up now to buy it.

WILLIAMS: I don't know, but I know they didn't buy it when he put it out. And the key point here is the assumption should always be that a child belongs with his mom or her mom, their parents.

GUTFELD: Well, they arrived without their parents.

WILLIAMS: And the idea -- the idea that --

GUILFOYLE: Right. Once that's determined.

GUTFELD: The missing 1500.

WILLIAMS: I think you guys are really missing the idea that something so essential and so much a part of family values would be violated.

GUTFELD: Yes, we're against family values.

GUILFOYLE: No, this has nothing to do with family values.

GUTFELD: We eat children.

GUILFOYLE: It has to do with public safety.

WILLIAMS: No, it's not.

GUILFOYLE: Why are children coming over unaccompanied? Where are the parents?

WILLIAMS: Public safety Are -- kids are going to -- kids are terrorists?

GUILFOYLE: I never said that that.

GUTFELD: No, just release them into the street, Juan.

WILLIAMS: What?

GUTFELD: Just release them into the street.

WILLIAMS: What are you talking about? Let them be with their mother.

GUTFELD: They're in a different facility.

WATTERS: What if the mother did something not so good (ph)?

WILLIAMS: They should be with their mothers.

GUILFOYLE: Let's cue the pictures from 2014 of children in cages from the Obama administration.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: This is not asylum. Oh, my gosh. Asylum is not --

WATTERS: It's not all about asylum.

WILLIAMS: In a minute, they're all going to be members of MS-13, according to you. I find this really terrible.

GUILFOYLE: I mean, well, some are.

WILLIAMS: Oh, boy.

GUILFOYLE: The Supreme Court sides with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. What it means for religious freedom, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: In one of the most closely-watched cases of the term, the Supreme Court has sided with a baker, a Christian, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the grounds of religious objections.

The justices ruling 7-2 for Jack Phillips, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to respect his right to freedom of religion.

However, the high court stopped short of a decision on the broader issue of whether a business can outright refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

So Kimberly, let me just say that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, said that this denial is not based on public accommodations, because under public accommodation laws, you would have to serve these folks.

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

WILLIAMS: It's based solely on this specific baker's religious objections. What do you think?

GUILFOYLE: Yes, I think that's -- you nailed it. That's exactly what it's based on. Because if it was public accommodation, then you would have to make, you know, allowances for it. But this is strictly a religious freedom case in terms of applying it specifically to the facts of this case and saying somebody should not be infringed upon or discriminated against pursuant to their religious beliefs.

And in this particular case, the way that it was laid out and the fact pattern demonstrated that that person had a religious objection to being able to do this. And the religion should be, you know, respected and not infringed upon. So I think it was pretty, you know, specifically tailored in this direction, so it's not as broad as perhaps some people might've initially thought.

WILLIAMS: But Jesse, the question then becomes -- and I think a lot of people say -- well, this is a danger. So that, you know, if Jesse is sitting there and he says, "You know what? I don't want to deal with women on the basis of my religion," Jesse can say, "No women allowed in here."

WATTERS: Sounds like a terrible religion.

GUTFELD: Exactly. It exists.

WATTERS: I didn't hear what you're saying.

I mean, I'd bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. I mean, it would probably taste terrible, and it would be made of Duncan Hines. Nobody would ever want that at a gay wedding or any wedding.

I think this guy can do what he wants. It's a terrible business decision.

GUILFOYLE: That's kind of analysis(ph).

WATTERS: More gays are getting married, and there's a lot of gay wedding cake money coming in. Why turn it down? Money is green. I don't care, you know, who -- who's paying you. Bake the cake.

But that's his liberty to do, and that's fine.

But like you said, they've just kicked the cake down the road here --

GUTFELD: Nice.

WATTERS: -- because this is such a narrow decision.

GUTFELD: True.

WATTERS: All they did was slap down the Colorado Commission of Civil Rights. They haven't really adjudicated, you know, the whole decision about religious freedom versus gay civil rights. That will come later.

WILLIAMS: Dana, what do you make of the fact that --

GUILFOYLE: Good analysis.

WILLIAMS: -- two Democratic-nominated justices, Kagan and Breyer, siding with the conservatives on this?

PERINO: Well, I think that's because it was about, as Justice Kennedy said, tolerance has to go both ways.

So the civil -- Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not do the right thing initially.

What I wish that the Supreme Court had done is gone ahead and done the full thing on rule on the issue of religious liberty that the country is hungry for them to decide on. We are so polarized we can't figure it out on our own. And so the Supreme Court is really still trusted.

And I think that now we're going to have to go through this again. Another case is going to have to come up through the court. It will be a couple, three years before we get a final decision.

WILLIAMS: Greg, I always think of as a libertarian. So I'm curious.

GUTFELD: we have a new c-word. Cake. It's so complicated it is decided by the Supreme Court and not by us.

I mean, you'd have to think about the rights of the baker. You'd have to think about the state being biased against religious rites.

But then you have to think about respecting customers. If you are open to the public, the public comes in. You know, that's -- but then again, my feeling is you shouldn't have to do anything you don't want to do.

Like, I don't like all people. I don't like anybody. So if I had a place open to the public, I might not serve you, because I don't like the color of your shirt. Like, if I don't like plaid, you're out of here. But the thing is --

GUILFOYLE: He's one to sit at the bar by himself.

GUTFELD: -- it's a very difficult thing. The law shouldn't compel you to do something, so maybe you don't do it and then you pay the price of losing business, as Jesse would say. You become known as being kind of a jerk.

WATTERS: Yes, so he wouldn't bake cakes that criticized God or contained alcohol. So he was a really strict.

GUTFELD: I am not going to that bakery.

WILLIAMS: All right.

GUTFELD: No, that's a good point. He couldn't do it. I mean, I -- I don't practice religion. So he wouldn't make me a cake? I drink. So he wouldn't make me a cake?

WILLIAMS: Remember Lester Maddox? He said it was his right not to serve blacks.

Anyway, "One More Thing" up next. We're going to change the mood around here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: It's time now for "One More Thing." So summer is finally here, and what better way to kick off summer then go swimming in the pool? Here's how one kid got started.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(YOUNG KID TAKES TUMBLE INTO POOL AFTER HITTING HEAD ON DIVING BOARD)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: Oh, it's Greg.

WATTERS: Oh!

PERINO: Jesse. Why do you do this?

WATTERS: What do you mean? It's a great gag (ph) video.

GUILFOYLE: It's not. He could be totally injured.

WATTERS: He's fine. He's fine.

GUILFOYLE: Well, why are you showing it so many times?

WATTERS: You're so sensitive. He's OK. Everything is fine.

GUILFOYLE: it is like your weird slapping video.

WATTERS: I just thought it's an amazing video. It's, like, the perfectly executed way to not slip off the board.

GUILFOYLE: I mean, I could see Greg doing some video like that in poor taste. But you, Jesse?

PERINO: Of an animal?

WATTERS: I couldn't stop watching it.

GUTFELD: No one was hurt. All right. Except for this video. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAPHIC: Greg's Indifferent Cat News

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: "Greg's Indifferent Cat News." All right. Let's just role the tape here.

GUILFOYLE: My gosh.

GUTFELD: Clearly disturbing tape. There is a dog excited. There's something going on. Maybe the houses on fire. But the cat is clearly indifferent. Or maybe he got tickets to a concert. Cheap Trick's in town. He's like, "Hey, I've got tickets. I can't wait to go." And he probably - - Uber is outside, and Uber's going to leave and charge him. But the cat is still indifferent. And the guy had to call the car with his little paws.

WATTERS: That's like me when you're talking in the commercial break.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God. That's like you, Greg, outside my window.

PERINO: You know I love a good podcast in the morning.

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

PERINO: The new FOX News rundown podcast is quite good. I've really liked it. And they let me participate. Tomorrow morning, you're going to hear an interview that I did with former federal judge Kevin Sharp. He was the lawyer that did the original review of the case of Matthew Charles, who's the person I've been talking about, who had to return to prison because of a --

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

PERINO: -- decision by the government that I think was the wrong one. He explains that. And also his decision to leave the bench and to help others who are in the same position as Matthew Charles.

GUTFELD: Six a.m.?

PERINO: No, you can -- it airs at 6 a.m. But I mean, then you can download it over and over. That's how podcasts work. I'll explain that to you later.

GUILFOYLE: Set your alarm, Greg.

GUTFELD: I want to get it live at six.

WATTERS: Kimberly.

PERINO: You can tell Alexa to turn it on for you.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, do that. Alexa should spy on your house, Greg.

OK, so I have an excellent book recommendation that I started reading reading this weekend: "Lincoln's Last Trial: The Murder Case That Propelled Him to the Presidency." So as a former prosecutor, I find this book particularly fascinating. It's by Dan Abrams, who's ABC's chief media analyst and founder of Mediaite, and also by David Fisher.

The book tells the story of Lincoln's last murder trial, where he argued on behalf of a man who was claiming self-defense in an 1859 murder trial that was a highly-publicized case that served as one of the springboards for the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and his extraordinary political career.

What's particularly interesting about it is it centers around the only transcript that's available that exists about Lincoln's legal career that he argued.

WATTERS: All right.

GUILFOYLE: So you can get it on Amazon. Check it out.

WATTERS: Juan Williams.

WILLIAMS: Well, we're just about out of time, but I just want to say a lesson in human kindness. Hats off to Jamie Foxx, who attended an event for children of military families with special needs. Foxx's sister has Down syndrome and he was there to dance with the guests and says he'll do it every.

PERINO: Oh, that's nice.

WATTERS: Very nice. Greg is going to take this toss -- Greg.

GUTFELD: Fair and balanced is your dream. Make way for Shannon Bream.

WILLIAMS: Go, Shannon.

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: What can I say? I love you, Greg. Thank you.

PERINO: Aww.

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.