Sparks fly at fiery Strzok House hearing

close

Video

Sparks fly at fiery Strzok House hearing

Peter Strzok testifies on anti-Trump bias during explosive hearing on Capitol Hill; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," July 12, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: Well, that was Peter Strzok, the FBI agent, lead investigator on the Clinton email probe, the lead investigator on the Trump-Russia probe. A lot of people are accusing him of bias and he denied bias all day long, grilled there on Capitol Hill for hours by a joint house committee. Let's just take it around the table. That was a marathon today, Greg, very contentious.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I felt like I was unemployed on the sofa watching eight -- back-to-back episodes of Jerry Springer. That was like parliament without the wigs. It's either new low or a new high. I don't know what it is, but I call it a clown show, but clowns are sexier. This whole event reveals how little wisdom there is in this world. There's so much noise, so little wisdom. Those are all smart people. They're not dumb people. But the environment, the politics and the spotlight turns everybody into idiots. And I say all of them. I don't just say Strzok. By the way, Strzok, we're never going to get to the truth because he has 30 lawyers there, 30 Democrats senators and con are there who are white knighting every time you want to get to the truth. They jumped in front of him to take the bullet. And it's like, they're not helping him. Nobody is helping him. His smirk drives me crazy. I just want to pull my hair out and scream and get wasted.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: I think you've just describe how pretty much everyone watching feel. You have your finger on the pulse of America.

GUTFELD: I have the finger on the pulse of something.

WATTERS: Yeah. And for someone that has a nice smirk, his smirk definitely bother me as well.

GUTFELD: You do. You're smirk brothers.

WATTERS: Dana, I know you've been glued to the TV all day.

PERINO: Absolutely.

WATTERS: Do you think the members of congress on the Republican side landed any solid blows today on Peter Strzok that kind of shed light on any of his activities with regard to the Trump-Russia investigation?

PERINO: Here's what I know, I am sure if you ask the Republicans, did you land any blows on him, they will say absolutely yes and they'll give you lots of reasons. The Democrats would say absolutely not and they'll give you all of their reasons, and the polarization continues. I did think it was quite odd that you had the one congressman on the Democratic side said that he wanted to give Peter Strzok a Purple Heart, which is outrageous. That's disgusting, actually. To suggest, given what the Purple Heart is actually for. Then, you had Democrats applauding part of the testimony that Peter Strzok gave, like that's wholly inappropriate. And I thought there were several Republicans, including Louie Gohmert, I will say, went way overboard, it felt like a public lynching. I thought it was terrible.

GUTFELD: He should get a purple nerd ball.

PERINO: You know what they should do with these hearings, and I know we're on televisions so maybe we don't want to say this, they should not be on camera. They should be on the record. There could be reporters there. It wouldn't be in public. But as soon as you bring cameras into this situation you have all of this grand standing.

WATTERS: Well, Watters' World may definitely take it live.

GUTFELD: It turns it into a cable news show.

PERINO: Yeah. I mean, nothing against cable news.

WATTERS: Dana brought up a point about, you know, the Democrats consistently and constantly throughout the day attacked and interrupted and made a spectacle whenever a Republican was getting close to something, they would get out of order -- let's just look at some of the contentious back- and-forth that happened during the hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Point of order. The witness will answer the question.

(CROSSTALK)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Attorney-client privilege. And he's been advised not to answer the question.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The gentlemen will suspend.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What rules are we following that would dictate such an answer by you, Mr. Chairman?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We are following the rules of the committee.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Could site the rule?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: No.

(CROSSTALK)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The Democratic members have a right to know what the rules are in governing this hearing.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies and gentlemen.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Can you share with us?

(CROSSTALK)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Are you making up as you go along?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: This is going to be tough for me to get through it. I keep getting interrupted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Now, Juan Williams, you've seen this for decades on Capitol Hill. Is there a strategy behind people interrupting and causing this type of chaos during a hearing in order to deflect? Or are these people just can't control themselves emotionally?

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: I think the latter is true. I think this is grand standing. Someone just said that to me. This has been a day long grand standing. I like what Greg said about Jerry Springer. So it's not cable news. It's afternoon television, right? And it's at its worst.

GUTFELD: But there's no hair pulling because you have Louie Gohmert.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. What the guy -- the guy who would stand -- the big guy and he would prevent the fight.

GUTFELD: Yeah, yeah, the bouncer.

WILLIAMS: But they don't have that. They need that. But I will say, contrary to what you guys think, I thought Strzok explained some things. And don't forget, by the way, Dana, that you had Democrats who want to release the testimony that he gave earlier in closed-door hearing. And so far, the Republicans have said we don't want that released. I'm not clear exactly why?

PERINO: I don't know either. Like, at this point, just let it all out.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, let it go. But I do think that when Strzok said some things that, to me, were news. I mean, he said when he's talking in what appeared to be, I think, to a Democrat or a Republican about, we're going to stop Trump, and I thought that's not good for an FBI agent to say. I understand therefore why Mueller and the FBI would let this guy go. He comes back and says he's really upset about the way Trump had treated -- I think it's Kamir Khan.

GUTFELD: Gold Star family.

WILLIAMS: The Gold Star family. And he's saying he thought Americans, we as Americans wouldn't allow -- I mean, he could have talked about John McCain.

PERINO: Stop, Juan.

WILLIAMS: No, no, I'm just telling you what the man said. The second thing that struck me.

WATTERS: Can we before you get -- can we play some of that sound. We have what Juan was mentioning about the stop-Trump text. Let's hear it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I want to know what it meant, Agent Strzok.

STRZOK: It would be his candidacy for the president.

(INAUDIBLE)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It's not that tough.

STRZOK: My sense that the American population would not vote him into office.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Right, right. Well, we haven't gotten to the will yet.

STRZOK: Well, I'm trying to.

(CROSSTALK)

STRZOK: . explain the text.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The will of the American people, is that right? That's your testimony. The, we'll stop it, you were speaking on behalf of the American people, is that correct?

STRZOK: Mr. Gowdy, what my testimony is and what I said during extensive asking of this question during my prior interview is I don't recall writing that text. What I can tell you is that text, in no way, suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidates.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Agent Strzok, that is a fantastic answer to a question nobody asked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Do you believe that? I don't remember that.

JEDEDIAH BILA, GUEST CO-HOST: No. First of all, you, obviously, remember it. And secondly, we'll stop it, means that there's intent to do something to stop it. That's not just him having an opinion. That's not just him having a bias, which he obviously had. Which, by the way, Trey Gowdy did an excellent job of laying out, he laid out the history of bias of all the comments of this guy made about, not only President Trump but Trump voters, about how he was all, you know, glorifying Hillary Clinton and saying that she should win the election before he even interviewed her. So, there's a whole history of bias. Then you have this text. It's outrageous. I mean, this is what people say when they say that people in politics think that the American people are a bunch of morons in order to buy this, because there's no way that you could believe -- not only that, Trey Gowdy also lays out in another point that he was thinking that Trump may, in fact, be able to win the election or -- it's just ridiculous, honestly.

WILLIAMS: Here's the second thing I wanted to say about Strzok. Strzok makes the case that if he really was trying to stop Donald Trump, he would have leaked the fact of the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

WATTERS: So here's where I disagree with that, because I don't think they would ever leak that they were investigating Trump without any evidence because, remember, at that point, there was no evidence of collusion. We still have not seen any evidence of collusion, and Trump was running on a, the system is rigged against me, OK? And I don't think Obama would ever allow or whether like anybody leaking they're investigating Donald Trump. Remember that was his answer for why we didn't do anything about Russia, and why we didn't do anything -- no, during the 2016 -- during 2016, in the fall, President Obama is on record as saying he didn't want to say anything because he didn't want to look like we were rigging the election against one candidate.

WILLIAMS: Jesse, you're right, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about this guy, this FBI agent, this former army ranger, this veteran.

WATTERS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Let me tell you, I'm a journalist. I know who leaks. Guys like him leak, and he didn't leak it.

WATTERS: OK. It was already out, Juan. The dossier was out. Harry Reid had been briefed on it by Brennan. To say this wasn't out there, it was out there.

GUTFELD: Can I add just something -- I find it interesting when you can't recall a text, but you can explain the context of a text that you don't recall sending. So, I don't remember doing it, but I remember what I meant. However, the thing is, he wins this argument because with a text exchange, it's open to interpretation. I believe there's something nefarious when he said we'll stop it. He was talking about him, the insider. But, it doesn't matter what I think because there are competing alternatives.

WATTERS: And it's hard to prove.

GUTFELD: And it's hard to prove.

WATTERS: Because he can't answer any questions. Every time they ask him, when did you learned about the dossier was founded by Hillary, the FBI says I can't say anything. Where did you get the dossier from? The FBI says I can't say anything. So, I don't know if we're actually getting anywhere where he can prove that his bias didn't affect his decision.

WILLIAMS: What is this?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Some kind of star-chamber proceedings. Oh, this is what we're really after here, the heart and soul of this is, Agent Strzok, were you biased against Donald Trump during this campaign, and did you conduct your investigation in such a way as to hamper the Trump campaign and potentially aid the Clinton campaign? Well, he answered that.

WATTERS: We have sounds of it, and then I'm going to have Dana react. Let's listen to what he said about whether bias affected his decision- making.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STRZOK: Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took. The fact is, after months of investigation, there's simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions. This investigation is not politically motivated. It is not a witch hunt. It is not a hoax. It's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinions. Everyone does. Of course they do. The test is whether or not that is left behind when you're doing your job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: OK. Here's an analogy, Dana. This looks like a left-wing journalist who's been writing anti-Trump hit pieces for decades and has been investigating Trump, and it's very, very viciously anti-Trump. And then when you ask him, you know, has your bias ever affected your writing and your journalism? No. I keep my personal opinions totally separate. Isn't that the same thing?

PERINO: Well, I think journalist do try to do that.

WATTERS: Oh, they try.

PERINO: I would put myself in that category. So, yesterday, for example, I interviewed Brian Fallon from Demand Justice. He had been the press secretary for Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows that I was the press secretary to President Bush. Can, I, at 2 0'clock and during that show set aside my personal experiences or leanings as I interview him? I can say I could try, but it probably comes through. And so, I think there are -- this varies by degrees.

WATTERS: Right.

PERINO: I think a better example might be a doctor, right?

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

PERINO: You know what I mean about the doctor, like -- let's say that there's an anti-Trump doctor and somebody on the Trump team is having a heart attack, does the doctor walk away and say he doesn't see it, or does he take care of it?

WATTERS: The doctor resuscitate Hillary, and then he pulls the plug on Trump. That's when you know the bias.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Humor that speaks to your point. Ronald Reagan was shot, taken to the hospital, and Ronald Reagan looks up of the doctor as they're about to operate and he says I hope some of you guys are Republican. That's pretty good.

GUTFELD: You know why he said that because they would be better doctors.

(LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: Thank you, America.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, because they'll rip your heart out.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: We should step back. We look at the Mueller investigation. We look at these -- the collusion emails, Hillary re-litigating the election. We have all these confrontations. We have politicians and celebrities, you know, attacking Trump. At some point, we're going to have to get over 2016.

PERINO: Yes.

GUTFELD: None of this is on the American mind. Maybe I'm wrong, because this is on three cable networks, but it's summertime. People are out doing stuff. They don't care.

(CROSSTALK)

BILA: I think Trump has made a point that was in the FBI, there has been an effort by some of those people, by some aspect of it to undermine him. And many pooh-poohed that and laughed at it and said it's a big joke. And now you see a guy who is -- I don't know what more information you would need to not only show his bias but to show that there was intent here to do something about it. You don't say if I write a text to Jesse and say, oh, Juan is doing, you know, a terrible job on the show, and Jesse says, well, he just got renewed and I say we'll stop it. That means we're going to try to stop you from getting renewed. That doesn't mean the American people are going to write letters and then try to make that happen. This was direct intent.

WILLIAMS: Well, I would just say in my own defense that it's time for Sharknado. I think a lot of people would watch that show, just like they're watching this silliness today, you know,

BILA: Well, also this guy forcing him to reenact those text.

(CROSSTALK)

BILA: Great television.

WILLIAMS: Talk about jumping the shark.

PERINO: I mean, Jedediah, that's the point. This wasn't supposed to be great television, it's a congressional hearing.

BILA: I agree with you, but I do think it drove the point home on how horrifically biased those things that he was saying. When he in one breath is saying I wasn't bias, and when he had to reiterate that stuff everyone at home was like, come on, man.

WATTERS: Let's remember, he was removed from the Mueller probe for bias. The I.G. says he was biased, and he's being investigated still by the I.G. for bias.

BILA: That's a better point.

WATTERS: And Rosenstein said he was bias.

WILLIAMS: And the I.G. report said what, Jesse? That it didn't affect his work.

WATTERS: They've said it couldn't prove that it affected his work.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: Can we stop talking about it?

WATTERS: They're breaking, we're breaking, the hearing is in recess right now for the next 15, so we're going to come back live when they're back, All right. First, Trump shakes up NATO, defending his tough talk. The summit shock waves up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: All right, like an orange tornado, Donald Trump swept into the NATO summit. The expectation: total destruction. But hasn't anyone noticed a pattern? Not the media who monitor Trump with an infant's temperament. It's always the end of the world. Yet, why do we always feel fine? Could it be because tremendous progress has been made?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Tremendous progress has been made. Everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. They're going to up it at levels that they've never thought of before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: Never, never.

So after all the noise, everything is calm again. And it seems like all Trump did was ask the other guys to pay their fair share. Fair share. Remember when the media loved that?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share.

It was important for us to make sure that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

Making sure the wealthiest Americans begins to pay their fair share.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

GUTFELD: But ask of that of your allies? Our media bristles. How dare us rubes ask our more sophisticated allies to chip in on the bill especially in public. It's like when the dinner bill comes, it's always that know-it-all at the table who darts to the restroom, leaving you to be the jerk to call him on it because he knows you won't. But he never expected that Trump would be at the table who would do it to his face because, frankly, he's our jerk. Germany spends only 1.24 percent of its GDP on NATO, which was created to curb Soviet expansion. Meanwhile, Germany is pipelining with Putin. Talk about Soviet expansion. Since America is always left with the bill, maybe we can call Germany out for hiding in the john doing dirty deals when the check drops.

Now, Trump wants defense spending at 4 percent GDP, twice with these countries already fail to meet. Why would he do that? Maybe to get them to meet the initial target. Could he be a stable genius?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm very consistent. I'm a very stable genius.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: So after all the tantrums, can't the media admit that Trump had a point?

Now Putin is next, which means everyone on CNN will don their chicken suits and scream at the sky telling us it's the end of the world, but only as they know it.

Jed, another apocalypse averted it seems.

BILA: Oh, yes. I don't understand the outrage over this this. I really don't. I don't understand why is there a country that's an ally of ours that isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing, and we're all supposed to be helping each other out and they're not pulling their weight in a certain area, I get you have to be a little bit cautious with the language that you use, maybe, in the way you approach it. You don't want to jeopardize those relationships. But he's the President of the United States. He is supposed to put America first. He is supposed to say, hey, guys, look, we're all supposed to be helping each other out, and if you're not giving the percentage that you're supposed to be giving towards the spending and we are, you need to up it. That's his job. That's what he's supposed to do.

WATTERS: He's like the guy at the restaurant when the bill comes, he itemizes the bill. He's like, well, no, you had steak. I only had an appetizer. I didn't drink. So, and that's funny though. You know, the media loved when Obama went on the apology tour, and they hate this. I mean, this is just -- he wants to strengthen NATO and make sure everybody has skin in the game. I don't see why they have a problem with it at all.

GUTFELD: Let me ask Juan, is this that stereotype realize where you have this snooty European and the ugly American who comes over.

WATTERS: He talks about money.

GUTFELD: And talks about money and jingle change in his pants, you know what I mean?

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. Well, look, we have a stable genius.

GUTFELD: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And the stable genius on our team goes over there and the context is what's missing. I think from Jesse's analysis because 97 to 2 is what the senate voted just this week to say we like NATO. The American public is like 69 percent NATO helps us in terms of international security. And guess what? We have here in a situation where the president comes out and says, oh, I have persuaded all these NATO allies now to up their spending. Emmanuel Macron comes out and says no, we just said we will hold to our existing promise.

GUTFELD: Which is good.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: It's just bluster.

GUTFELD: They're lousy tippers, the French.

WATTERS: They are. He likes NATO. He just thinks he can get up better price for it.

GUTFELD: Dana, isn't that the key -- I mean, maybe I'm wrong. This is only my speculation is that to get them -- to get to the 2 percent.

PERINO: Yeah. I mean, it's the art of the deal. You know you're going to compromise.

GUTFELD: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

PERINO: But I think what he is saying also is that if you think that you have a problem with Russia and I agree with you, if he does, we'll see.

GUTFELD: Right.

PERINO: You have a problem, then you should put more towards your defense. The thing about that has bothered me about this, it's not like there's a big NATO pie. The percentages is what you spend on your own defense for your country. So it's like -- that's why they're a little bit different. The Estonian GDP, we get 2 percent of Estonia's GDP, like, really -- we've just made that in an hour in the United States. So, it's all like leading up to it. I think on the Putin thing was very interesting and I would watch for it is -- you have Netanyahu go to Putin the other day and say I want you to make a deal with us -- let us deal with Syria and take you out of the picture, and let us have Iran.

GUTFELD: Isn't it -- isn't that pipeline thing a little squirrely? It's Stroders behind it, isn't he?

WATTERS: Yes. So they have this pipeline -- should have gone through Ukraine, instead it goes right to the sea, right through Russia. And it shouldn't.

PERINO: Well, part of the reason.

WATTERS: . gone through Ukraine.

PERINO: But part of the reason the Ukrainians didn't want it is they didn't want the Russians to get to put their pipeline through Ukraine.

WATTERS: You get transmission fees when it goes through Ukraine.

WILLIAMS: Let me just tell you -- and also that deal was struck in 2000, way before of all the trouble.

WATTERS: I know.

WILLIAMS: So you have a different context, Jesse.

WATTERS: I agree. They should buy it from us.

GUTFELD: Exactly. Ukraine, I crane, we all crane.

WILLIAMS: By the way, do you really want Germany to have a strong military?

WATTERS: Oh, Juan.

GUTFELD: Fair point. The explosive bombshell that has liberals foaming at the mouth over President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: If you thought the left attacks against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were already bad, wait until you hear these ridiculous attempts at a smear campaign.

In a Washington Post headline, "The Elite World of Brett Kavanaugh," we learn, quote, "In Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep yearbook, he listed himself as the treasurer of the 'Keg City Club -- 100 Kegs or Bust.'"

Another Post headline reveals "Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh piled up credit card debt by purchasing Nationals tickets, White House says."

And pro-choice group NARAL tweeting, "Well, we'll be damned if we're going to let five men, including some frat boy named Brett, strip us of our hard- won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. #StopKavanaugh #SaveRoe."

Stephen Colbert also doing some mudslinging.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, CBS'S "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical, because his name is Brett. That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at Ruby Tuesday's.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: Jesse, this is all they have?

JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: I guess so. I mean, it sounds like he's likable. He likes baseball and likes to drink.

PERINO: And also, Juan, you've got to like a guy who went into a little bit of credit card debt to get Nationals tickets. It's worth it.

WILLIAMS: Mrs. Williams, you didn't hear that. I'm a big Nationals fan and I have season tickets. So --

PERINO: He has been a government employee for almost his entire adult career.

WILLIAMS: Of course, he lives in a much better neighborhood than I do. I mean, he lives in a great neighborhood.

But so what? You know what? But I think this is so much fun. I mean, at this point, they're just having fun, because the real thing is can the Democrats stop him? Delay or stop it? Can they stop the hearings or at least delay them? And that's the real argument that's going on.

So all this is, like, frivolity at this point. And by the way, the Nationals this year are not worth the money.

JEDEDIAH BILA, CO-HOST: Juan, why do Democrats do this? It reminds me of Mitt Romney and they're running articles about how Mitt Romney bullied a kid in prep school. And it seems like Democrats do this often when there's not -- like talk about a guy's record, Kavanaugh. I take issue with one of the tax-related cases Mark Levin was talking about the other night, how he argued that the mandate for the Affordable Care Act was a tax and not a penalty. Talk about that. Take issue with that.

Why did they go into this nonsense that depletes that whole argument? It makes people say, "You guys are just swimming, looking for something."

WILLIAMS: I think they will get into it. I think that this moment, that's just where we are, Jedediah. I mean, it's like yesterday, there were these wonderful pictures of him with his family when he announced when he was -- the nomination was announced and he spoke in the East Room of the White House.

And then there were articles about, what does it mean when men show off their women as part of their resume, the $2 and the wonderful wife. And I thought this is ridiculous. Leave the guy alone. But you know what? They are going to talk about the record. It's not only the tax records; it's surveillance.

PERINO: Commercial break talk.

Greg, what you think. Is this good for Brett Kavanaugh? That he --

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Yes.

PERINO: -- is a normal guy?

GUTFELD: Beer kegs, baseball, and debt. You can't get more -- you can't get more American than that. This is a new era where you're going to get younger nominees who are from a generation where they use party as a verb and not a noun. And I'm older than this guy, and I'm older than the previous guy, and my hobbies were not this benign.

WATTERS: You're older than the Supreme Court --

GUTFELD: I'm older than two of them. So we're going to be in an era. Think about 10 years from now, 20 years. The permanence of social media, everyone is going to have a paper trail. The Supreme Court is going to show up. They're going to have sorority pictures.

PERINO: "What did you mean when you tweeted --"

GUTFELD: Exactly.

WATTERS: I don't remember tweeting that.

GUTFELD: How much are those tickets? That's a lot.

PERINO: But remember, he's been a government employee for 20 years.

GUTFELD: But it's -- you've got baseball. You've got debt. You've got beer. I bet he -- if they find out that he runs an apple pie smuggling ring, that will be amazing.

WILLIAMS: He goes to a great Catholic church attended by more of the Washington elites and he hangs out at a --

BILA: Oh, my gosh.

WATTERS: And he was serving homeless people hot meals the other day at a soup kitchen.

GUTFELD: It was too hot.

WATTERS: It burned the homeless guy's tongue.

PERINO: It is like weekend at Kavanaugh's, Supreme Court addition.

We're waiting for the hearings to resume on Capitol Hill. We'll bring it to you live when they're back.

But first, facial recognition is a hot new craze, but there's more than meets the eye. What you should know before opting in.

GUTFELD: Puns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Five." You're going to see more of the wild and hairy congressional hearings, Peter Strzok hearings, resume any minute. But before then, we'll give you some entertainment. We will give it to you live what it does resume, though.

In the meantime, you might think that the new facial recognition tools are cool, but they could come at a big cost, a surveillance state. The new technology can apparently land you in trouble for anything from jaywalking to traffic violations and far more.

Social media companies like Facebook use it to help tag users in photos, but consumer groups and advocates say it may violate your privacy, because it names people without their consent. Jedediah, there was a front-page piece in The New York Times this week talking about how the Chinese government is using this kind of technology to spy on people in public places doing ordinary things.

Does this upset you?

BILA: Very scary, and this is why I wrote -- I'm about to pull a Gutfeld - - this is why I wrote the book "#DoNotDisturb: How I Ghosted My Cell Phone to Take Back My Life." I actually wrote a lot of this.

WILLIAMS: When does it come out?

BILA: Comes out October 9. But the preorder is available now. But I wrote this because this stuff with facial recognition, with fingerprinting, is getting really, really scary. Because A, the stuff could be hacked. B, you never know if a third party is going to acquire the data and what they're going to do with it.

And oftentimes, you don't even realize that you are having these photos taken of you or you are part of the system, because you have to opt out. It's not that you have to give your consent to opt in. You have to know that they're automatically scanning my face, I'm automatically part of this, and I have to go search and figure out how to opt out of this feature.

People don't know that. They assume that, if they haven't signed up for something like this, they're not participating.

GUTFELD: A problem with facial recognition. What if you look a lot like someone? I'll be able to access Brad Pitt's bank accounts.

PERINO: I mean, that's going to be a huge problem.

GUTFELD: Yes.

WATTERS: I'm going to get hit with fines for David Schwimmer running red lights.

WILLIAMS: But here's what -- here's what really surprised me about this. They can go into a supermarket. So Jesse is in the supermarket, and he's buying soup. And they can say, "Hey, that's Jesse Watters. Not your -- your Doppler [SIC]. That's Jesse Watters. He likes Campbell soup. And if you give him a discount right now, Jesse will buy more."

You think, why are they doing this? Why are they using this technology?

WATTERS: They're doing that to make money, Juan. It's like whenever you Google something, and then two minutes later there's an ad that pops up that is exactly what you were looking at.

GUTFELD: It's so embarrassing. Especially at work.

WILLIAMS: What were you looking for, Gregory?

GUTFELD: Exactly.

WATTERS: Ads popping up over there.

GUTFELD: Yes.

WATTERS: Listen, I like it for terrorism. Like, I could see putting them in airports or train stations or in Times Square, but you can only use it to fight terrorism.

I don't like it when you can get hit for jaywalking or for running a red light. I like the cat and mouse with police. You know, it's like they should be able to catch you running the red light personally. They shouldn't be able to use red light cameras. That's just not fair.

PERINO: Did this happen to you recently?

WATTERS: I'm getting a lot of red-light camera tickets.

WILLIAMS: So Dana, six years ago the Europeans asked them to stop this. "Don't do it." And what we've seen is especially after Zuckerberg testified earlier in the year, declining confidence in Facebook in the American public because of things like this.

PERINO: I think -- The New York Times story about China affected me because in some ways, you think it's convenient. A friend of mine -- I talked to her last night -- she lives in Abu Dhabi. She's an American there. Her husband is in our military.

And she got in a car accident. And they -- she called the police, and they said, "Oh, are you in the white Acura? We're seeing it now." So the cameras are everywhere.

But what's happening in China is even worse. They'll find out, like, you're walking down the street. Like, oh, that guy right there, they'll put your face up on a bulletin board, big debt. Right in front of -- and publicly shaming people. So it's a way to control --

WATTERS: Is it Kavanaugh they caught?

WILLIAMS: That's a liberal joke. That's a liberal joke.

PERINO: I think the allure of a lot of this is it adds to convenience, and it helps you get things done, but then the danger is when it tips over onto the other side.

GUTFELD: Can I just make one point real quickly? Privacy is overrated. I think we should let everybody know everything. You know, before you get exposed, expose yourself.

WILLIAMS: Wow. OK. Peter Strzok just sat back down at the congressional hearings. We're going to take you back to that live.

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.