Special counsel controversy

close

Video

Gutfeld: The real collusion between FBI and Clinton campaign

Now we have proof of collusion not between Russia and Trump, but Hillary's camp and the FBI.

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," December 5, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I'm Greg Gutfeld with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Juan Williams, Jesse Watters and Katie Pavlich -- "The Five."

Last summer an FBI agent was pulled from Robert Mueller's special investigation into Trump. Makes sense. Peter Strzok seen there had exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary texts with a mistress who was also on Mueller's team. That's evidence of bias, and let's face it, stupidity. Strzok also had interviewed top Clintonite Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, as well as overseeing the probe into Michael Flynn, which raises this bias test: If Flynn's lies warrant a charge, why don't Huma and Cheryl? It's a good question. Especially when the same lawyer also change a vital phrase in Comey's statement about Hillary's email. "Grossly negligent," my nickname, became "extremely careless." That small change reduced Hillary's action from criminal to merely incompetent and that ironically preserved Hillary's nomination, helping pave the way for Donald Trump. That's pretty hilarious, if you're not a Democrat. You should be really angry.

So do these revelations mean Mueller probe is biased? Maybe. But this whole thing went from being about colluding with Russians to anything involving a Russian. If you rooted for Drago in "Rocky IV" then you're guilty. I did.

And it's obvious that the media craves something really big. They want a holiday ham from Mueller, but so far all they got is a fuzzy breath mint. Look at them losing their colluding minds:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: I think they're shocked that the noose is tightening because I don't know if they were arrogant or just incredibly un-self-aware and really dumb about what the job was about. How important it was and how under the microscope every move you made would be. I think they just thought they'll go in there and flimflam and riff through it. And I think they're shocked that the news in tightening. And the people might go to jail.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: You're exactly right.

BRZEZINSKI: For the rest of their lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: "For the rest of their lives"? They're so cute when they're nuts.

You know what this is? It's called the fainting couch. You both need one, you chuckle buckets. But now we actually do have proof of collusion not between Russia and Trump, but Hillary's camp and the FBI. Ignoring that would be grossly negligent.

All right. We've got some breaking news here, Jesse, from judicial watch I believe. The new Justice Department record shows strong support. Andrew Wiseman, who is a Mueller deputy, showing strong support for -- what's her name? Betsy Yates?

JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: Sally Yates.

GUTFELD: Sally Yates. Her refusal to -- I like Sally or Betsy.

WATTERS: Same thing.

GUTFELD: Same thing.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Good breaking news there.

GUTFELD: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Her refusal to endorse the travel ban. He said my deepest respect to you, I'm so proud of you. And that's a person working for Mueller.

WATTERS: Yes. So he praised her for defying Trump's travel ban which is funny because the Supreme Court by 7 to 2 margin just upheld as constitutional. So both of those individuals are partisan and they're out of step with the constitution.

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Hold on. They didn't uphold it as constitutional. They said you can put it in place.

WATTERS: Juan, in the middle of my brilliant commentary just let it slide. And you can take it up with me later when I'm finish.

WILLIAMS: All right. Go right ahead.

WATTERS: . because it's always correct. And they fought hard, the team Mueller, for keeping this.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: . communication from the public. Now, Wiseman is an extremely controversial individual. He has a reputation for rule breaking, for withholding evidence, for threatening and intimidating witnesses. And I think the Houston bar called him a madman. Now, the two major prosecutions of Wall Street firms, Arthur Anderson and Merrill Lynch, he completely botched. One was overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0. The other was overturned by the district court of appeals. So the guy has a track record of prosecutions and convictions being overturned. He's maxed out to the Obama campaign, and he's a partisan people. He doesn't belong anywhere near an investigation. Now, Mueller also -- another investigator, Janine Ray, maxed out to the Clinton campaign. Representing the Clinton Foundation, represented Hillary personally when she was fighting the email thing. So just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, Gutfeld. And you have prosecutors investigating Hillary, and there're Trump donors, or they work for the Trump organization and they're sending text messages about crooked Hillary. Make America great again. Do you think the Democrats would take that lying down? No.

GUTFELD: I don't -- a pair of shoes because I don't want her tripping. You know, Kimberly, there's a lot of pieces of information here that may seem small but they adds up to a pattern of bias. You have emails with a mistress, overlooking Huma and Cheryl. They're adjusting language to help Hillary. That's a lot of stuff.

GUILFOYLE: No, it is when you're talking about aggregating this information. When you put it together, it makes quite a compelling case. That there is -- very much a lack of objectivity, that there's inherent bias in the investigation, and what's shameful is that they would put people that are so partisan that have made actual financial contributions and have them be part of an investigation of someone that they do not support and have gone out of their way to put their money where their mouth is and say, OK, I'm against this person. Then plus, the language, the text messages, the emails. And Sarah Carter told Sean Hannity last night that her sources, there are more emails coming out to show the bias here, and that they're really kind of out to get Flynn and President Trump, then candidate Trump at the time. So this is exactly what you don't want from anybody involved in investigation or injustice. That's the problem here. So you can't just blow it off and say, oh, well, who knows. No. When you add it up, it means something significant.

GUTFELD: You know, Katie, this is collusion. How far does it go? Probably to the top.

KATIE PAVLICH, CO-HOST: And that opens up all kinds of questions about the Clinton email investigation, which we all had sitting around this table questioning what the extensive nature of that investigation was. Why is it that the inner circle that played around Hillary Clinton was able to have immunity? Why does Cheryl Mills was allowed to be both a witness in the case and also the attorney for Hillary Clinton? And one thing that jumped out at me today is that the Justice Department is not commenting on any of this. So it must be a very awkward place for Jeff Sessions to be in, for his staff to be in, because they're the ones who have to answer to this as well. And they have a problem on their hands when it comes to special counsel. And Rod Rosenstein who appointed the special counsel is the one who is going to have to really look at this and go, we do have a conflict of interest here. And it's not that you can't have a political opinion. Washington, D.C. is a one-stop shop for politics. That's what people do there.

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

PAVLICH: The problem is the conflict of interest, and clearly there's been one on multiple occasions in a variety of cases.

GUILFOYLE: Imagine though for what you're saying if President Trump wasn't elected and Sessions wasn't the A.G., can you imagine that you might not ever hear about this?

GUTFELD: But here is the fun part, Juan. You've got to love this. If Strzok hadn't struck those words, she wouldn't have been the nominee and you might've had a President Sanders, and you would've been laughing for the rest of the year on The Five.

WILLIAMS: Let me tell you, Gregory, I laugh a lot on The Five.

(LAUGHTER) PAVLICH: He have to laugh to keep from crying.

GUILFOYLE: Shock, chuckle and awe.

WILLIAMS: That's excellent.

GUILFOYLE: Thank you so much.

WILLIAMS: I appreciate that. But let me just tell you the news today, which is, of course, you're not going to hear it here, folks. But the news here that Robert Mueller has now sought documents from Deutsche Bank related.

GUILFOYLE: Fake news.

WILLIAMS: Guess who? Donald Trump.

(CROSSTALK) PAVLICH: That's not true. Donald Trump's attorney came out and said.

(CROSSTALK) GUILFOYLE: John Roberts says that's incorrect.

(CROSSTALK) GUILFOYLE: According to John Roberts it's not true.

GUTFELD: John Roberts says it's not true.

(CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: The second thing to tell you, right? Guess what? One of the guys working with Manafort had ties to the Russian secret service, right? Again, we're getting closer.

GUTFELD: Closer to what?

WILLIAMS: What you hear here is, oh, it's all about some silliness of FBI agents. Guess what? They have opinions. They have political beliefs. Which among us wasn't tweeting, Gregory, in the midst of the presidential.

(CROSSTALK) PAVLICH: He's not an FBI agent.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I know somebody tweeting in the midst of the presidential debate.

GUTFELD: But I wasn't interviewing Cheryl and Huma.

WILLIAMS: You can do your job. You can come in here and do your job, and then just like Mr. Strzok do his.

PAVLICH: OK, Juan. Here's my question, because the entire reason why Jeff Sessions as the attorney general of the United States recused himself from the Russian investigation is because he said there was a conflict of interest because of his involvement in the campaign. Would it be OK with you for him not to have recused himself? Because he might have political opinions about Donald Trump, but he can still do his job even though he was on the campaign.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. He was personally involved, Katie. In other words, he's even had to come back.

PAVLICH: So there is a double standard, I got it. It's different for different people.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. He was actually involved. This agent had a political opinion and was doing his job as an agent. You guys now are attacking law enforcement when it comes, but not.

(CROSSTALK) GUTFELD: Juan, you're trying to shift the argument away from the obvious collusion between Hillary's campaign and the FBI.

WILLIAMS: There is no such thing. You're trying to shift this away from Donald Trump and the fact that after the Flynn plea and admission of guilt to lying, that as you heard from Mika, oh, my gosh.

GUILFOYLE: Mika.

WILLIAMS: Mika. I think the news is tightening.

PAVLICH: Are we allowed to say the news is tightening or is that.

GUTFELD: I don't know.

PAVLICH: Or is it a ban phrase?

WILLIAMS: A ban on people who died by lynching?

PAVLICH: I don't know.

GUTFELD: But here's the thing, Jesse, the point is, the news is tightening, they're actually lowering the bar for what they want. First they wanted collusion, now they're looking for obstruction of justice. There probably not going to get that.

WATTERS: They've been investigating collusion for two years. If they had found collusions it would have leak by now. They haven't found collusions, so now they're trying to build on obstruction case.

GUILFOYLE: That's what they do though.

WATTERS: Probably trying to impeach this guy. Now Juan, let me just go back to something you said. I don't have a problem if someone is donating to a Democrat or donating to Republicans and they're the lead prosecutor going after a gun manufacturer, or a large corporation, or through an Indian reservation, or something like that. This is politics. This is so much more serious than, you know, just some sort of corporate prosecution or Wall Street prosecution. They're going after a political campaign, the winner of that political campaign is now the president, and prosecutors are donating to her opponent and giving different treatment to different people based on their politics. That alone raises the question of has the integrity of the investigation been compromised? And has the team then compromised? There's an old saying you are who you hang out with. That would make Mueller a Trump hater.

WILLIAMS: What does that make me, hanging out with you guys?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: So that makes me therefore some wild eyed conspiracy theorist like you, no. I don't think so.

WATTERS: Juan, let's just say I'm not sure we're friends. We're colleagues.

(CROSSTALK) GUILFOYLE: You're like a mean girl, Jesse.

WATTERS: Juan brings out the best of me.

WILLIAMS: But I'm going to try it. It doesn't make a difference.

WATTERS: I think it does.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: If there had been Trump donors investigating Hillary, you would have raise hell.

WILLIAMS: I'm sure there were, because guess what?

(CROSSTALK) GUTFELD: I'm tired of guessing want. I'm tired of guessing what.

GUILFOYLE: Guess what?

GUTFELD: Guess what?

GUILFOYLE: Guess what?

GUTFELD: Guess what? We're going to go to a tease, All right. Guess what, Juan? A tease.

WILLIAMS: A tease.

GUTFELD: Armageddon, up next.

GUILFOYLE: Wasn't that just it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: See that? That my friend is what it looks like when Armageddon is near. I learned that from the movies. Nancy Pelosi's idea of the end times, the Republican tax bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: This health care -- the debate on health care is like death. This is Armageddon. This is a very big deal. Because you know why, there's really a very hard way to come back from this. They take this further, more deeply into debt. What can you do but raise taxes?

(END VIDEO CLIP) WATTERS: Yes, more fearmongering from the top Democrat in the house, and she's not the only one in her party using scare tactics to condemn the sweeping legislation. Here's Obama economic advisor Larry Summers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: When people lose health insurance, they're less likely to get preventive care, they're more likely to defer health care they need, and ultimately they're more likely to die. My piece explains why an estimate that thousands will die as a consequence of this bill is actually a very conservative estimate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: No matter what Republicans propose, it's going to lead to death and destruction, Greg.

GUTFELD: Yes. And without hyperbole, Democrats would have nothing. If you take up any issue that isn't immediately dangerous like the Trump election, climate change, tax reform, the debate starts with them saying that the opposition are evil killers.

WATTERS: Right.

GUTFELD: . taking us down to the path of the apocalypse, except, except when it comes to ISIS or terror. It's the most amazing contrast. If you actually flip the reactions so the concern over taxes is actually a concern over terror, for once, liberals would be right. So what does this tell you? Liberals only feel outrage if they can direct it at Marxist progressive approved enemy which is the west. So when it's climate change or the election or taxes, you are evil because you're the west. You can ever say anything about ISIS or terror in the same vein.

WATTERS: So Republicans are more deadly than ISIS.

GUTFELD: Exactly.

WATTERS: Is that what you're getting? It's like the boy who cried wolf. How long can they keep this up?

PAVLICH: This is such a lazy argument that they made. I mean, remember the Nancy Pelosi allies ran with Paul Ryan pushing an old grandma off a cliff when they're trying to do Medicaid -- Medicare reform, excuse me. I mean, this is an argument they've been using forever. And now I understand after hearing from Larry Summers why the Obama economy was so bad. And for him to suggest that because people are forced to buy Obamacare, that they somehow have health care is a complete and outer lie. The insurance under Obamacare doesn't necessarily provide you any health care, first of all, because it's too expensive. And second of all, because there's -- not enough doctors now and the demand for health care has gone through the roof as a result. Waiting time for health care had increased. Rural hospitals have closed. This idea now that we're allowing people to get out of an entitlement program which is Obamacare, of course it's terrifying to Democrats because that mean that people can spend their own money and buy their own health care, opening up a whole another market which is an indictment of government run health insurance.

WATTERS: Do you know what really kill people, Juan?

WILLIAMS: Tell me.

WATTERS: The Obama V.A. scandal. People actually died there.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. But let me just tell you, Katie. I think that.

(CROSSTALK) WATTERS: I thought I made a pretty good point.

WILLIAMS: . there's more people covered by insurance because.

PAVLICH: Because they are forced to buy it, Juan.

WILLIAMS: I'm just saying, more people have health insurance which is good for us all.

PAVLICH: Because the government tells them they're going to be fine if they can't buy it.

(CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: It created a system that allows us all as Americans to have fewer dollars imposed on us as when you and I buy because we're employed, and those who don't have the money for health insurance, to get health insurance so that they don't impose a burden on the rest of us. This is good for Americans, good for the health care system. Keep costs down.

PAVLICH: It's horrible.

GUTFELD: No effect on health.

WILLIAMS: It does. But let me just say something -- oh, if you don't have health insurance, try to be healthy.

GUTFELD: They're studies that show.

PAVLICH: Juan, people don't have health insurance under Obamacare because it's too expensive.

WILLIAMS: OK. Let me get back to what Greg was talking about though, because it seems to me you ignore something that Republicans had endorsed for years, which is the joint commission on taxation, the official scorekeeper of congress, saying that everyone who makes less than $75,000 is going to see a tax increase under this in ten years. You don't notice that -- oh, my gosh, Republicans have always been deficit hawks, and what do we see from the official scorekeeper, 1.5 trillion additional costs added to our deficit. So it seems to me like you don't have to say Armageddon. I think she's trying to be hyperbolic, you know, because she's trying.

GUTFELD: So you agree with me?

WILLIAMS: But I think she is right when she says -- and by the way, most Americans -- guess what, most Americans agree this is a bad bill.

GUTFELD: I'm not crazy about the bill, but I'm not setting my hair on fire.

WILLIAMS: So why are you over there defending it?

GUTFELD: I'm condemning the behavior, the behavior which is hypocritical. They don't act this way when it comes to existential threats.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: On the fact that Democrats criticize it even though you don't like the bill yourself.

(CROSSTALK) GUTFELD: Now that the people involved are murderous monsters and everybody is going to die.

GUILFOYLE: But Juan agrees with what you said.

GUTFELD: I know.

GUILFOYLE: He says, you know, very liberal use of hyperbole. And then he said the language was hyperbole.

WILLIAMS: I agree with that.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: You live in a hyperbolic chamber.

(CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: I mean, the audience must have come away from Greg's monologue thinking, oh, Greg thinks it's is a great bill. Republicans are doing the right thing. Oh, those Democrats.

WATTERS: Only you were confused, Juan.

(CROSSTALK) GUILFOYLE: Calgon, take us away because this is getting crazy. Americans are very tired of this language of semantic gymnastics that the Democrats and the libs put forward to scare them, throwing granny off a cliff, or this, or that. It's enough already for them. Especially, because they are seeing the impact of Obamacare having literally pulled dollars out of their pockets that they wanted to be able to have for their families to be able to use for other things that they needed. Instead what happened here under the Obamacare is that people are being forced and penalized, and basically tied to a chair and say give us your money to pay for the uninsured, etcetera. How is that something that should be allowed? So now we're trying to improve on that. And yes, there's going to be some bumps along the way, but it's overall going to be an improvement and better for the working class Americans.

PAVLICH: If you look at the bill and the contents of the bill, Democrats have been arguing for decades that they are the champions of the middle- class. Here we are with an actual piece of legislation that is going to give the middle class a tax cut across the board. And guess what, people in the higher tax brackets are going to get a tax hike. So why are Democrats complaining about it?

WILLIAMS: Wow.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Audience, go look for yourself an independent analysis. Nobody thinks that the rich and corporations are taking a tax hike.

WATTERS: You know what I think was Armageddon, the Obamacare website.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.

WATTERS: John Conyers is out of congress for now. There's a twist, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: Today, John Conyers became the first member of congress to give up his seat amid a national reckoning on sexual harassment. He was facing intense pressure to resign after multiple misconducts claims surfaced over the last two weeks. He announced his retirement on a radio show this morning, but still denies the allegations against him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNINDENTIFIED MALE: This goes with the issue of politics, the game of politics, which we're in. We take what happens. We deal with it. We pass on and move on forward as we keep going, trying to make as much as we can of this tremendous opportunity that's been given me for so long.

(END VIDEO CLIP) GUILFOYLE: The 88-years-old says his legacy will continue through his children, and endorsed his son John Conyers III for his vacant seat. Greg?

GUTFELD: Is this royalty or a republic? I mean, we don't know anything about his son. The apple may not far from the underwear. So I don't know. I don't think it's right for him to keep it in the family. I don't think you should be allowed to do that. But by the way, comparing this to all the other revelations hitting media, politics, entertainment, he's getting off pretty easy. I mean, he's 88 and he's retiring, it's not like he's losing his career at the age of 40 or 35 or 50, I mean, this is not a tragedy. He's 88-years-old. Go spend some time, you know, other things that don't involve changing your clothes in front of people.

WILLIAMS: It's pretty much tragic when a guy who was the longest serving member and who was revered by many in the black community, certainly in Michigan, ends up in this kind -- I mean, his whole legacy I think is tarnished. And I think that's why today he said in terms of his son. I don't know his son either. But he said my legacy will continue through my -- because the guy understand that he will be remembered in these terms and not as the guy, for example, introduced a legislation to honor Dr. King -- with the national holiday for the birthday. That's damaging.

PAVLICH: It's a good lesson for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, for men in big powerful positions. They do a lot of good things throughout their life, that is true, but when it comes to this kind of behavior, you might get away with it for 10 years or 20 years, but eventually it will catch up to you. That is exactly what happened now. My question is, going into 2018 midterm elections, how are Democrats going to play this politically? Are they now going to be the party that takes the high road on sexual harassment and assault claims and try to have some kind of standard for lawmakers when they are accused or when there are credible accusations that they stepped down. Is Al Franken going to be someone who is -- who is also pressured into maybe stepping aside in a safe -- safe-ish Democrat seat?

2018 is going to be interesting to see how this narrative about this issue plays out in politics, because as we've seen with Republicans with the Alabama Senate race, they've chosen a different way of handling the issue. Right? So going into...

WILLIAMS: Let me hear that. I want to hear that.

PAVLICH: They've just chosen, based on how Democrats have reacted for 30 years of sexual assault claims like Bill Clinton, just double down, deny, drag the victims through the mud. They've taken that playbook and used it and said, "We're not going to give up our power, because Democrats never do. And if we're all going to be in the dirt on this thing, well, then we're going to have our own people who are going to a vote for an agenda doing -- doing that voting." Whereas maybe...

WILLIAMS: Do you think it's comparable? Do you think it's comparable what Roy Moore is accused of doing?

PAVLICH: I'm not comparing them. I'm just saying generally.

WILLIAMS: Because I don't see any -- I don't think it's comparable, what Al Franken or John Conyers touching a woman with, in terms of Roy Moore asking 14-year-olds to take their clothes off.

GUILFOYLE: That is an allegation.

WILLIAMS: That's what I said.

GUILFOYLE: But there is an investigation going forward on it.

WILLIAMS: What about -- in these other instances, there's photographic evidence. There's money paid. So that point is you have to have due process with each situation. We're not trying to say, "OK, this is pretty bad. This is really bad. This is so, so."

It's just, "OK, has there been a settlement paid? OK. Is there photographic evidence or otherwise or eyewitnesses percipient to the time when the assault or the conduct occurred?"

That's how you run an investigation. That's what we do in this country. We don't just say something because someone's been accused of it and say, "All right. Fine, you're done. That's not how it works."

WILLIAMS: But that -- Conyers didn't have any investigation. He just -- he's been forced to resign...

GUILFOYLE: He paid -- he paid up. He paid them.

WILLIAMS: ... by Democrats...

GUILFOYLE: Right.

WILLIAMS: ... because of his behavior and because...

GUILFOYLE: Midterm elections coming up.

WILLIAMS: No, no. I was going to go to her point, which is that apparently, he used office money, taxpayer dollars as hush money.

GUILFOYLE: That's bad, too.

WILLIAMS: But that has -- that is not to say that this is comparable to what Roy Moore did.

PAVLICH: I was not comparing them. I was simply saying there's -- the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault, to whatever degree, is going to be a political topic...

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

PAVLICH: ... in the 2018 midterms. And it will be interesting to see how Democrats handle it, and it will be interesting to see how Republicans handle it, as well.

GUILFOYLE: OK. So Jesse, rain brilliance.

WATTERS: OK, well, listen, he did the right thing. It took him a little while to get there. He was a lame duck. And a sitting duck, because he could have been blackmailed, too.

And remember how the Democrats got here. First they said he was iconic. Then they raised doubts about the accusers. Then they played the race card.

So the guy was old. It was a safe seat. It's Congress; it's not a Senate seat. It's a lot easier to kick a guy out like that.

But there's a lot of lessons here. The public will not stomach a sexual harassment settlement with taxpayer money. They just won't. Also, another takeaway: whenever you settle, especially more than one suit, you're always going to be assumed to be guilty in the court of public opinion.

And every case is different. And in politics you have a long leash to fight these allegations. In the private sector, one accusation, good night. And I think, you know, the bottom line, there's a lot of talented and very successful guys. We've known them. We've -- we've been around them. And they're deeply flawed. And it's very complicated, and it's very sad to see. And you feel sorry for the victims. You feel sorry for the people involved, but you know, it happens and, you know, it's not a good thing. And we shouldn't be celebrating it either.

GUTFELD: There needs to be a retirement home.

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

GUTFELD: All of -- there are so many of these guys. Like, where are they going? They just go off and they disappear. There needs to be a place for them, where they could just -- just for them.

WATTERS: Just for them.

GUTFELD: A closed-robe curfew at 10 p.m.

PAVLICH: Oh, my God.

GUILFOYLE: All righty. More drama from self-promoter Lavar Ball ahead on "The Five."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:38:02] WATTERS: Remember the dad who refused to thank President Trump for helping his son dodge punishment once he was accused of shoplifting in China? Mr. Trump called Lavar Ball an ungrateful fool. Now that, quote, "fool" is pulling his son out of school.

First, here's LiAngelo Ball in a new interview, talking about what he did overseas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIANGELO BALL, ARRESTED IN CHINA: We all went out one night, went to the malls, went to the Louis Vuitton store. And people started taking stuff and then, you know, me just not thinking and being with them, I took something, too. I didn't realize until I got back to the hotel, I'm like, "That was stupid."

Sure enough, the next morning the police came and got us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: LiAngelo was among three players suspended from the UCLA basketball team. Now Papa isn't happy his son is benched, so he's yanked him out of the university. Here's why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAVAR BALL, FATHER OF LIANGELO: China already said, "OK, he made a bad mistake. We're going to drop the charges." That's the punishment they gave him. Now we over here, look at we've got to serve some more punishment? He apologized. What is the long process for? We only went to UCLA, one and done, to play basketball.

I'm going to get JELL-O and shake (ph). We're going to do some other things, and he's going to be headed to the NBA.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Wow. Now let me tell you something. I just think this dad who seems to me is like just, you know, I mean, he is like a black Trump. He's just talking, talking, talking.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God.

WILLIAMS: Saying stuff, selling whoop tickets. But why he would say this about his son, I don't get it. Because I think the son was lucky to get out of jail in China.

PAVLICH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: So do you want to start?

GUILFOYLE: Where do you begin? Where do you begin? But it sounds like he's had some discussions with teams or where he thinks his son's just going to go right to the NBA?

WILLIAMS: But no, in fact, the NBA general managers, Kimberly, have said this kid is not an all-star. Remember, his brother, who plays for the Lakers.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, but don't tell it to Lavar Ball. Because if he says it, it's so ordained.

I mean, I don't know. I felt bad for the kid. He's kind of sitting there, like, "Whatever." What can you say? I think his dad is, like, running the show. And he's, like, the equivalent of, like, a stage mom. I don't know. Like his son is in the pageants. And he's like "This is what you're going to do."

WILLIAMS: Does this work out, Jesse? What do you think?

WATTERS: No, it doesn't. But this guy has more charisma in his pinky than I think most all of us. I love to watch him on television. He's fantastic, but now the rest of the country is getting to see what a wacko this guy really is.

He's basically pulling his son out of UCLA so he doesn't have to suffer the consequences for stealing. So he's going to go one and done at another school? No, he's not. NBA scout says he's not a first round, second round or he's not even on the radar.

Furthermore, the bloom is off the rose with the Ball boys. The guy on the Lakers is having a terrible year. He's really underperforming. This guy, they don't want to sign a family like this.

PAVLICH: No.

WATTERS: This guy gets in front of the camera, he steals the limelight.

GUILFOYLE: I guess.

WATTERS: No owner is going to want to deal with this family. It's nothing but trouble.

PAVLICH: The P.R. department is like "No, thank you."

WATTERS: I know.

PAVLICH: Do not have him come here.

GUILFOYLE: Like Colin Kaepernick.

WILLIAMS: By the way, on that point, the Lakers had to change their policy about reporters talking to family and loved ones behind...

PAVLICH: Yes. Families cause problems sometimes.

WILLIAMS: No. They call it the Lavar Ball Rule.

PAVLICH: On a more serious note, all right, I think that this father needs to YouTube some videos, do some research, read about what it means to be in a Chinese prison for ten years.

And this is the reason why consequences are important. The consequences matter. For him to say that he was treated worse at UCLA than he would be treated in China, he was looking at ten years in prison and a communist country where they don't really care about your well-being. They don't care about human rights.

And the idea that they are now being so arrogant and ignorant about what the consequences were going to be actually is pretty insulting the people who, I don't know, like Nobel Peace Prize winners wives who have been in Chinese prisons for simply being a dissident in the government. I mean, there's a lot that goes on in China, and this kid is really, really, really lucky that he didn't get stuck there for ten years.

WILLIAMS: Well, Katie makes such an important point, but I want to talk about silliness, Greg. And the silliness is that Lavar also sent a pair of sneakers, red, white, and blue, to President Trump. But he says the president hasn't thanked him.

GUTFELD: They are kindred -- they are kindred spirits.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my God.

GUTFELD: I'm going to defend the father. If you're -- if you're majoring in molecular biology and you're suspended indefinitely from the lab, what do you do? You've got to leave school.

He's -- the father is honest. His son is only there to play basketball, and if he's not playing basketball, what's the point? Study? Please.

PAVLICH: Right.

GUTFELD: An indefinite suspension is, in effect, asking him to leave.

WILLIAMS: Wow. But what about -- and I think lots of people on this...

GUILFOYLE: What about a great education?

GUTFELD: At UCLA? Come on.

GUILFOYLE: You've got to go to UC Davis.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: Berkeley. Berkeley is way better. UCLA is like the basement school of UC, the UC system. You go to UCLA just for the weather. You go to Berkeley for the brains.

WILLIAMS: Let me just say, as a dad, it's important not to tell your kids it's OK to steal. That -- like that was wrong. You've got to send some lessons.

How young is too young to be on social media? Controversy over Facebook's new app for kids coming up next on "The Five."

GUILFOYLE: The basement.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAVLICH: As if kids aren't already glued to their smartphones, Facebook is giving the more reasons to be addicted to their devices. The social media giant is now targeting preteens with a new app called Messenger Kids. It requires parents of children under 13 to approve contact so they can chat with their friends and doodle on pictures they send to one another.

Facebook says the point of it is to provide a more controlled environment for kids who are already connecting with each other on their phones. But of course, there's always concern about safety when it comes to children.

So I'm going to defer to the parents on this side of the table.

GUTFELD: All right.

PAVLICH: As a kid who wasn't even allowed to watch MTV, this freaks me out a little bit. But it seems like they've put some things in place to make sure the kids are safe.

WATTERS: Yes, I'm afraid my daughters are going to go on Facebook and write nasty things under my videos on my page.

PAVLICH: Oh, anonymously.

WATTERS: That's my biggest fear. I don't want them on screens any more than they already are. They're already watching too much TV. I can't control it. They're on my phone. They're on everyone's phone.

I don't like it. I want them to play outside and use their imagination. I think that's healthy. And it's a magnet for perverts.

GUTFELD: Hey!

WATTERS: Can you get on there and pretend you're 13 and then you're really 45 and go on and start conversating?

PAVLICH: According to Facebook, they have implemented a number of restrictions so that parents have to approve who the kids are talking to. The contacts have to be approved. The kids don't actually sign up for the account. It's through the parents. So essentially, it's just something on the parents phone or iPad that they can...

WATTERS: It's probably a bunch of Russian bots or something like that.

PAVLICH: Maybe that's true.

GUTFELD: Blame it on the Russians.

PAVLICH: Always the collusion with the Russians.

GUILFOYLE: I think this is well-intentioned. Right? I mean, I don't know. We'll have to see how it works out. There's not a lot of buzz in it, in terms of, yes, like Jesse says, people being able to breach or get on there to use it for untoward, inappropriate purposes. So we have to watch out for that.

But in general, parents have to monitor and have, you know, I guess, like, guides on there and to make sure, and restrictions on a lot of things.

PAVLICH: Juan...

GUILFOYLE: Your cable, too.

PAVLICH: ... are screens melting the brains of the youth? That's why everyone hates millennial s?

WILLIAMS: I don't think there's any question it changes the way your brain works in the way you interact socially with people. The big question is the one Jesse touched on, which is, you know, people who would approach these young people over social media in ways that you can't trace as a parent, as a responsible adult. And then set up tragedy.

So, I mean, we live in an era of a lot of this kind of, you know, sexual stuff; and we don't need it. I mean, kids should not be exposed to that, even if it's of their own choosing.

One final point: I think Facebook is in this for the business.

WATTERS: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Let's not think that they're being so...

WATTERS: Trying to get more users.

WILLIAMS: Sure, and they're trying to set the kids up to stay on it. Because right now, more kids are using Snapchat and Kick and other stuff.

GUILFOYLE: That's their business plan.

PAVLICH: Yes, they say they've implemented safety filters about nudity, sexual content, violence. And a report team can -- a support team that can respond to any kind of flagged content.

But the other thing, Greg, they have on this, which doesn't make sense based on the guidelines, is parents can't spy on their kids' conversations.

WATTERS: That's no fun.

GUTFELD: That's actually...

PAVLICH: This is 13 and under. Right? So you'd think you'd want to be able to read.

GUTFELD: That's actually -- this is a really bad idea, and I'm going to stray from everyone's concerns.

It's not strangers that ruin your life. It's you who ruin your life. You are handing something that makes permanent the things that they say. Now, have you ever listened to a child?

PAVLICH: Right.

GUTFELD: The things they say make no sense.

WATTERS: Yes, I was just called Poop Dad the other day.

GUTFELD: Exactly. And you know what that means?

WATTERS: What?

GUTFELD: Listen up. In some parts of this town, it's not pretty, Jesse.

GUILFOYLE: Eww!

GUTFELD: Children have a hard enough time -- a hard enough time communicating in real life. If they go -- they're going onto a network where what they say is permanent.

PAVLICH: Yes.

GUTFELD: And we know young people are ruining their careers...

GUILFOYLE: So true.

GUTFELD: ... and their lives right now for stupid tweets.

These children will no -- we say children of the future. No, because they will -- they will no longer have a future because of this crap they said when they were 12 and they were 13.

And what if there's -- they can say stuff about you. They can go on there and say, "Oh, last night Daddy and Mommy were smoking cigarettes that smelled really funny, and then they were eating bowls of Cool Whip." They could start talk -- they could ruin your reputation.

And that stuff, it's a permanent bathroom wall. I mean, adults are ruining their lives. They're losing their jobs for old tweets. This is not a good thing for parents. And a stranger isn't going to ruin your kids' life. The kid will be fine doing it themselves.

GUILFOYLE: So then you're talking they have to be off of social media and not have these accounts. Which by the way, a lot of my friends in the FBI say that.

GUTFELD: Children should be placed in boxes.

GUILFOYLE: Be very careful what you do. And don't have your children on Snapchat or Instagram accounts or things like that...

PAVLICH: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: ... because this is where they can get in trouble. And it's a permanent record. You go for a job or if you ever want to get a job and work for the FBI or the CIA, or anything like that. Sorry.

GUTFELD: Read the Hardy Boys.

WILLIAMS: Somebody's should talk to Donald Trump. Maybe his parents might take it away.

PAVLICH: Maybe. We'll see.

"One More Thing" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: All right, it' time for "One More Thing." let's do this.

GRAPHIC: Greg's Yoga News.

GUTFELD: Greg's Yoga News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(WOMAN DOING YOGA ON BRANCH ABOVE STREAM, FALLING IN)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: Now, as you know, I love yoga, and I love communing with nature. But I don't love it when you combine it. Let's take a look at this young fitness enthusiast who decided that she would do her yoga on a branch over a streaming wild river. And here, she tries to do kind of a sophisticated hose.

WATTERS: Good-bye.

GUTFELD: Services were held last week. She passed away.

PAVLICH: No.

GUILFOYLE: That's not very good.

WILLIAMS: That's not true.

GUTFELD: No, she's fine. In fact, that's -- they show her again. She actually ends up doing it somewhere else. There she is. So everything is good for her.

WILLIAMS: Aww.

GUILFOYLE: Well, I mean...

WATTERS: Namaste.

GUTFELD: But I think you learned a lesson, haven't you?

PAVLICH: For the record, I am alive.

GUILFOYLE: That's the opposite of Hot Yoga.

GUTFELD: Jesse.

WATTERS: OK.

GUTFELD: I'm sorry. Are you next? No, I'm sorry, it's Jesse.

WATTERS: Yes. Electrical storm season in Australia. Check out this crazy video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(ELECTRICAL STORM FLASHING IN SKY)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Boom! Look at that. Don't get caught up in that. Tropical Cyclone Dahlia wreaking havoc over southern Australia. Look at that. Amazing video. Don't get anywhere near it. Just warning everybody. Steer clear.

WILLIAMS: Could it -- could that be Armageddon?

WATTERS: That's what Nancy Pelosi says the tax bill is.

GUTFELD: Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right. Thank you so much.

GUTFELD: You're welcome.

GUILFOYLE: So last night was a very fun event over at Del Frisco's, celebrating the new book release of Corey Lewandowski and Dave Bossie. And the book is titled "Let Trump be Trump: The Inside Story of His Rise to the Presidency." It is a fantastic book. You're hooked by page three, no joke.

So it was really great. And Steve Bannon was there, as well, to support them. And as you recall, former campaign manager Corey and also deputy campaign manager David Bossie. So it's a really good read, especially if you want to learn a lot about the -- you know, Trump's historic rise from the candidate that thought people couldn't win to the guy that got it done. So very cool.

GUTFELD: I hear Corey's writing really pulls you in. Just yanks you in. Can't let go when he starts -- when you start reading that prose, it just yanks you forward.

WATTERS: I don't get it, Greg.

GUTFELD: I don't either.

WATTERS: What could you be referring to?

GUTFELD: I don't know. I don't know what I'm referring to. The fact that he grabs women.

GUILFOYLE: OK.

GUTFELD: All right. Juan.

GUILFOYLE: What was your "One More Thing"?

WILLIAMS: Oh, my gosh.

GUTFELD: I was -- I love doing that.

WILLIAMS: I was waiting for you to, like...

GUILFOYLE: Velociraptor him?

WILLIAMS: Yes. All right.

GUILFOYLE: In two minutes.

WILLIAMS: All right. Talk about an upset. It's David versus Goliath match-up, and Twitter has revealed the winner of its top ten retweets of the year. Of course, you know President Trump avid tweeter, tweeted over 2,000 times this year alone; but here comes the surprise. Not one of his tweets is in the top ten.

But the surprise winner, former President Obama, there with three tweets in the top ten. Here's his top tweet on the day of Charlottesville when the white supremacists killed that woman. Here he is saying, "No one is born hating another person."

But here is the No. 1 tweet of all for the year 2017. A man asked Wendy's how many times he needs to be retweeted for a year of free nuggets. They tell him 18 million. He says, "Well, a man needs his nuggets." It was only retweeted 3.5 million times but Wendy's -- you will be glad to hear this, Kimberly -- they gave him free nuggets for the year. Go, Wendy's!

WATTERS: Nice.

GUTFELD: Free nuggets.

GUILFOYLE: I love nuggets.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PAVLICH: Indeed.

GUTFELD: Who doesn't?

Katie.

PAVLICH: All right. It is the Christmas season, as we all know, and second lady Karen Pence has unveiled the Christmas decorations at No. 1 Observation Circle in Washington, D.C., where they live, where she lives with the vice president, of course.

The theme is "Make the Season Bright," and there is a mile of lights, 36 wreathes, 800 yards of ribbon. One tree is decorated with ornaments made by participants in the art therapy program at Riley Hospital for Children in Indiana, where of courses, Mike Pence was the governor before becoming vice president.

Another tree features ornaments made by military families and lastly, one tree is decorated that recognizes the Pence's pets, Harley, Hazel and Pickle.

WATTERS: Pickle.

PAVLICH: I think it's very cute that one of them is named Pickle. Another food topic.

GUTFELD: No tree for me this year.

WATTERS: Yes?

WILLIAMS: Why?

WATTERS: Festivus pole?

PAVLICH: Festivus pole.

GUTFELD: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: He couldn't reach it to decorate.

WATTERS: Oh!

GUTFELD: Set your DVRs. Never miss an episode of "The Five." "Special Report." Over to you, Bretster.

PAVLICH: Bretster!

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.