‘The Five’ on Israel-Gaza conflict, Chris Cuomo report

close

Video

'The Five' react to cease-fire declared in Israel-Hamas conflict

Far-left Democrats attacked Israel before cease-fire; 'The Five' weigh in

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," May 20, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Jesse Watters along with Dana Perino, Katie Pavlich, Juan Williams and Kennedy. It's 5:00 in New York City and this is "The Five."

This is a Fox News alert. Prince William responding to a bombshell case of media malpractice involving his mother, Princess Diana. An investigation found that BBC reporter Martin Bashir used "deceitful tactics" in order to secure a landmark tell-all interview with Princess Diana back in 1995. Benjamin Hall is standing by in London with all the details. Benjamin?

BENJAMIN HALL, FOX NEWS FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jesse, good afternoon. Yes, you remember this interview from 1995. It was groundbreaking. The first time Princess Diana had spoken publicly about the breakdown of her marriage to Prince Charles, about his adultery with Camilla Parker Bowles.

In fact, she said in the interview "there were three of us in these relationships, it just didn't work." She spoke about her rampant bulimia and many people feel that this interview led to events that led to her death a couple of years later.

Well, what it is now -- what has now emerged is that she gave that interview after being shown forged bank documents which made it look as if members of the Royal household were being paid to spy on her.

Prince William released a statement just in the last few minutes saying "It is my view from the deceitful way the interview was obtained, substantially influence what my mother said. The interview was a major contribution to making my parents relationship worse and has since hurt countless others. It brings indescribable sadness to know that the BBC's failures contributed significantly to her fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her."

It was always thought strange that Princess Diana chose Martin Bashir, a relatively young, unknown journalist to do this interview. It's now clear she did so because he duped her and had asked the BBC graphics team to draw up these fake documents to convince her.

Some have compared that 1995 Diana interview to the one Prince Harry recently gave to Oprah. They both talked about how hard they found royal life and how it affected their mental health.

But an incredibly open, personal letter from Prince William in the last few moments, he has often said that he felt the media hounded his mother. Well this letter goes a little bit further and said had she known about the deceit at the time, things may have turned out very differently. Jesse?

WATTERS: Thanks, Ben. Hang tight, we want to ask you a few questions. Dana Perino, go right ahead.

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, Jesse, I know you are an expert on this case so I'm glad you've tossed it to me. Just kidding. I do have some questions, Benjamin. First of all, why in the world would Diana's team, the P.R. team -- I'm sure she's not making these decisions on her own, have asked for, you know, bank records? Why -- how does that happen?

HALL: Well, first of all, her team was actually quite diminished at the time. The Royal Family by all accounts had rather cut her off and she was left with quite a small team, her brother being the main one.

And this journalist, Martin Bashir approached the brother saying, I've come across these documents which show that members of your household and of Princess Diana's household have been accepting money, totaling about 10,000 pounds, about $15,000 to give information on her life to both the tabloids as well as to the security services.

And it was that piece of information that encourage Diana to go with Martin Bashir. It was widely reported that she was wanting to give an interview anyway but certainly not to this young Bashir, and certainly the interview would not have been, many people think, as groundbreaking and such a big, open, honest interview that she gave. But she was very angry with the reports that Martin Bashir brought to her.

PERINO: But what about this report that there was a handwritten note that she wrote that said she was happy with the interview?

HALL: She did and that's what Martin Bashir continually brings up, but that's because there had not been an investigation at the time. The BBC had an internal investigation which showed Martin Bashir was at fault here, but they held that, they covered it up, they didn't release it.

So, the feeling is at the moment that Princess Diana just didn't realize the true extent of the fraud that was played on her.

PERINO: That being said --

WATETRS: Wow. I believe Kennedy --

PERINO: -- I mean, I just that -- I think it diminishes her intelligence. She was clever and she was smart, and she was an intelligent woman and she put it out there that there were three people in the marriage.

Maybe that was hurtful, maybe that led to additional things, but it just seems to me that if you give an interview to a reporter at least here, it would be a little bit different. Thanks, Benjamin.

HALL: Thanks, Dana.

WATTERS: And Kennedy, would you like to ask Benjamin a question?

KENNEDY MONTGOMERY, FOX NEWS HOST: Yes. You know, often times we have a saying, obviously, the ends justify the means, but the means were fraudulent, and the end was utterly tragic for this woman. Can you put into context how she obviously was the brightest burning royal at the time?

There was years and years of gossip about the Wales' marriage but when that fell apart and this interview came out before before they were divorced, how did that interview change how she was pursued by the press and how did that lead into her son's reaction?

HALL: Yes. It played into it in a big way. And you're right, she was the shining star of the Royal Family at the time. And frankly, many people have said that Prince Charles in particular really didn't like that. He couldn't stand it. He was the heir to the throne. He was the one that was supposed to get all the attention.

And Princess Diana was the people's princess. She was the one that people turn to. And so when the divorce or when the marriage broke down, people started to side with her and they didn't like that. And then as soon as she spoke to the press, she kind of cross that line. You know, royals tend to be given some sort of privacy in the U.K. They certainly did in the '90s.

But when she came out and gave that big interview it was almost as if the gloves came off and that she was fair game for the rest of the press and really it was that point that we started to see them hound her, not just one or two paparazzi, but hundreds and hundreds at a time following her everywhere she went and she was not given support or security by the Royal Family. That what she argues.

The counter side to this is that she very cleverly used the media. She knew she was heading into a divorce battle. She knew that she needed to improve her own standing and become the people's princess. And so she was off to known to give tipoffs to the media and to the tabloids when it suited her and then also didn't want the attention when it was bad.

So, you know, there are two sides to how Princess Diana interacted with the media, but certainly, there is no excuse for the kind of journalistic malpractice that comes with forging documents to get an interview.

WATTERS: Juan Williams, why don't you jump in here?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS HOST: All right. So, you know, this week there was news here in the U.S. when Prince Harry, I guess, said, you know, he thinks the first amendment here in the United States is confusing to him. He doesn't understand it.

And I know that Fleet Street is famous in Britain for its aggressive tactics, you know, tapping phones and all the rest, but is there a different set of rules just for us as Americans to understand as we take in the story? Is there a different set of protections for public figures like Diana that are being applied now in this BBC report?

HALL: Well, you know, certainly, there was an understanding between the papers and the Royal Family, that there are the two princess would give x amounts -- I think it was only a few media events a year. And in exchange, they would be given their privacy. And that's been a long-standing agreement between the press and the princess over here and the Royal Family.

That started to change, and I think we've seen that the world over. Social media also started to mean that, and of course, that came a bit later, but they were everywhere. And paparazzi, the '90s was the heyday of paparazzi and these pictures are being sold in other countries.

So, the U.K. press could no longer control it and there was a big discussion as to whether if these photos were being taken so often of Princess Diana were being published around the world, well, why should the U.K. press also have to -- why should the U.K. have to be silenced and not be able to publish them?

And so, we started to see a relationship change between the Royal Family and the media. But yes, you talk about Prince Harry and I think, you know, many people say that he is just as savvy as his mother was when it comes to using and playing with the media and we've seen that now. He called the first amendment "bonkers" I think it was.

And it's surprising that Prince William was the first one to come out with a statement because it is almost always Harry who is quickly on Instagram or Twitter with his replies.

Interestingly, we will see the two brothers together on the 1st of July because it would've been Princess Diana's 60th birthday and they are unveiling a statue together, and it will be the first time we've seen them since Prince Philip's funeral and since the big rift has continued to widen.

So, all eyes will be on that, but it seems like there are two different camps of the moment. You have William who often comes out with these rather more restrained statements than you have Harry with this far more emotional ones and some people feel that he's really following the Diana model.

But this statement today from Prince William was emotional and raw to the core, and he talked about the pain and the suffering that this interview caused him. So, I think we are seeing a game player between the two of them. Prince William doesn't want Prince Harry to be the one who carries the mantle of his mother.

He wants to say -- be able to remind the world that she was his mother too and he has just as much of a right over her. So, it's an interesting battle playing out between the two brothers. So, we'll all be watching when they come back together again on July 1st.

WATTERS: Yes. William's statement actually included the phrase "fake news" which I had to do a little bit of a double take there. I didn't know that it become so popular across the pond, Benjamin. Katie P. would like to ask you a question so stick right there Katie.

KATIE PAVLICH, FOX NEWS HOST: So, Benjamin, you're mentioning this rivalry that seems to be brewing between the two brothers, and color me suspicious, but this was an independent inquiry, so can you please talk about who was behind the independent inquiry because this interview took place 26 years ago and now you have Harry in the U.S. working with Oprah.

There was a headline this week saying he was going to drop more "truth bombs" about the Royal Family. So, who is behind the investigation and why is it coming out now?

HALL: Yes. There have long been rumors that this interview was based on fraudulent reporting. The BBC did its own internal investigation about 25 years ago and they covered it up. This new investigation came along, it's called the Dyson inquiry headed out by Lord Dyson who is, you know, a well- known legal figure over here.

And it came about just because of changes in the media that we are seeing. We had the phone hacking scandal which took place, you know, 10 years or so. We've seen a number of cases brought back and re-investigated. This has been one of them. And as a result, this has come to light and it has now been accepted by the BBC who always denied it.

Well, there will be ramifications, we just don't know at the moment, but the press really are being held to account more and more over here. I think you mentioned the phone hacking, which took place around 10 years ago. That absolutely changed the way the media was seen over here. It was the Wild West for them.

They were, you know, hacking into Prince Harry's voice mail because a lot of these voice mails were just generic passwords. And all this information is being splashed over to the newspapers and they really cracked down on that. And what we are seeing now, frankly, is the media continuing to try and clean itself up and perhaps address old mistakes.

WATTERS: Thanks a lot, Benjamin. I guess it's true that media corruption has no borders. And Prince Harry has released a statement saying, "To those who have taken some form of accountability, thank you for owning it. That is the first step towards justice and truth. What deeply concerns me is that practices like these, and even worse, are still widespread today. Then and now, it's bigger than one outlet, one network or one publication. My biggest concern was history repeating itself. I've said that before on numerous occasions very publicly and what I was seeing was history repeating itself up but more, perhaps, or definitely far more dangerous because then you add race in and you add social media in. And when I'm talking about history repeating itself, I'm talking about my mother."

Very interesting that he would say that at this point.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

WATTERS: And we will leave it at that. Up next, a cease-fire reached between Israel and Hamas, but the tensions here at home are ramping up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAVLICH: Well, after 11 days of fighting like that, there's a cease-fire between Israel and terrorist organization Hamas. President Biden is said to react to the news at the White House. While that situation has cooled down for now, the conflict over the fighting in the Middle East is heating up in America. New video shows a shocking attack on Jewish diners by what witnesses say is a pro-Palestinian mob.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: (BLEEP)! Guys, guys! Hey, hey, hey!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAVLICH: So, Dana, we've been watching this play out in the Middle East, 4,000 rockets fired by Hamas at Israeli civilian targets over the last 11 days, but it's boiled over into the States and we've seen Jews hunted down in the streets by what people are saying are pro-Palestinian protesters. I would call them more than that, but that's what we're seeing on the videos.

PERINO: Right. So, and being investigated as a potential hate crime. Also, there are some -- because of social media or new technology there are ways that these groups can organize and say, you know, meet up, this is where were going to be. And possibly that will lead police to be able to, one, either protect people that are out and about or at least tracked down perpetrators of this.

Another piece of this as Joe Biden gets ready to make a statement in about 25 minutes, first of all, I don't understand how Hamas has conditions for a cease-fire, right. And I understand that the protection of life is very important, but we also to be very clear about the root cause of who supports Hamas and what Hamas has done, even to the people of Gaza.

Putting these missile targets right there in the middle of hospitals and schools. And the propaganda that Hamas is able to get out of this is that they are strong, that they are the position -- in the position of being the big guy, the one that can save everybody when actually they are putting so many people in danger.

Last thing on this, that there is just not enough attention, I don't believe, Katie, on the fact that the Democrats in Congress, some Democrats in Congress, are trying to put a halt to a recently approved weapons sale from the United States to Israel.

This has been the kind of pro forma. These things are almost always put forward and agreed to. All of a sudden that is in jeopardy. And it's like those Democrats that are calling for that are watching right there on their screen. They can see that Israel has utilized that money well. You can see that the Iron Dome is protecting innocent people.

And the Democrats somehow think that there should be less of that. I think we should pay a little bit more attention to that before Joe Biden gets to the podium in about 25 minutes.

PAVLICH: Yes, Juan, what about that? We've seen the squad saying they don't want to replenish the Iron Dome, but you can argue that the Iron Dome actually saves the lives of people in Gaza because it gives the Israelis a buffer not to react with full military operations every time Hamas, the terrorist organization, fires a rocket at civilian targets.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I don't think there's any question here that Israel is the far superior military power. They also a far superior economic power, Katie. But, you know, to my mind I think what's going on here is there has been a tremendous shift in public attitudes here in the United States. That kind of violence that we showed earlier is to be condemned. It's reprehensible.

Luckily, I haven't heard about this being any kind of widespread phenomenon here in this country. But what is true is that we live, and I think Dana mentioned this, in an age of social media. This is the first time we've really had Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this, you know, kind of social media milieu.

And so a lot of voices that were previously ignored are now being heard and I think a lot of those voices no longer, you know, for most of my life, Israel was a vulnerable state and, you know, one that the United States need as an ally to be supported.

And now Israel is a powerhouse in that region. We make deals with them in terms of taking on the Iranians and the like. And I think there's a lot of people who are questioning how they are using their power at this moment. That's why I think worldwide opinion is going in the other direction and Bernie Sanders, a Jewish U.S. senator is leading the drive to take away the money for further military weaponry.

PAVLICH: Kennedy?

MONTGOMERY: If you're going to take money away from anyone in terms of selling weapons, take it away from Saudi Arabia. That is most concerning to me, absolutely. Hamas is a terror organization. So, the question is, you know, do you stand for freedom or do you stand for Marxism? Because Marxism, they embraced and loved Hamas.

And they are defending Palestinians in a rationalizing terroristic violence. Israel is a lone democracy in the Middle East and it is our ally because they stand for freedom. And that is the big goal in our society and across the world right now. What do you stand for? Do you stand for Marxism or do you stand for freedom? It's that cut and dry.

And I hope that we have a president who is able to handle this diplomatically. I don't have a lot of faith in him, but I do support him and I hope he brings peace.

PAVLICH: Jesse, last word to you.

WATTERS: Juan said worldwide opinion has shifted against Israel. I never knew worldwide opinion was ever with Israel. That's news to me. And let's all remember why they are there. It's because of the holocaust. Millions were slaughtered in Germany and they were put there by the British because that was a British territory.

And Harry Truman, a Democrat was the first to recognize the Israeli country there. And since its founding, they've been fighting to the death trying to survive, being attacked from all sides. And they are fighting a terrorist organization. This terrorist organization, they are not trying to avoid civilian casualties.

Israel is trying to avoid them. Hamas is not trying to avoid them. So, if you're living in Long Island and Manhattan is just shelling you indiscriminately with rockets all day, and the world is calling for restraint while the insurgents are hiding in hospitals and schools here in Manhattan, you do your best to avoid civilian casualties. But you are going to take those people out as surgically as you can to save your own people. And to make peace and that's what the Israelis are doing.

PAVLICH: Yes. All right. We'll see if the cease-fire holds. Ahead, CNN's Chris Cuomo caught giving his brother advice on how to fight back against sexual harassment allegations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: If you thought the Cuomo brother's cue tip interview was in poor journalistic taste, wait until you hear this one. A new report says top anchor Chris Cuomo took part in strategy conference calls with his governor brother on how to respond to sexual harassment allegations. CNN giving us a statement saying that Chris Cuomo has stopped covering his brother on air and added "it was inappropriate to engage in conversations that include members of the governor's staff, which Chris acknowledges. He will not participate in such conversations going forward." Jesse, what do you think of that?

WATTERS: I think they have three problems. One, they should never have tagged Cuomo as a journalist at CNN. He's not a journalist. He's an opinion guy. And if you tag someone as a journalist, then yes, they have to abide by very strict journalistic guidelines. If you're an opinion guy, you could maybe tell a politician, hey, watch out for the fake news. It's a different dynamic.

The second thing is, I completely understand helping your brother out. He's your brother. You're going to help him out. But now, the stench of Cuomo the elder, has gotten on Cuomo the younger, and that stench is now wafting down the hallways at CNN, and that is also the problem.

The third problem is staffers at CNN are going to hate this, especially female staffers. And that's an internal problem that they're going to have to deal with. I did find it ironic that Cuomo on his show has mocked the idea of canceled culture yet advised his older brother to use cancel culture as an excuse to make his problems go away.

He does seem like a golden boy over there at CNN. I looked up. I don't know. He was in 29th place on Tuesday. No one is watching his show. For some reason, he's protected over there. Maybe he's just a really nice guy.

PERINO: 29th, but who's counting? Kennedy, you got to have a take on this one.

MONTGOMERY: I think they're both meatheads, and I think it's reprehensible. And they obviously skipped the lesson in ethics. They should be ashamed of themselves. The reporter who asked Governor Cuomo if he had the blood of dead New Yorkers on his hand, if this book was written on the backs of dead New Yorkers, and he snapped at them and said, you know, these are lessons that we should learn from the pandemic.

Yes, the first one is, don't put COVID-positive patients in nursing homes with healthy people who then succumb to the illness and die. He hasn't taken responsibility for that, or the sexual harassment allegations. He's blamed his accusers. And if that's the advice his brothers giving him, they should both be ashamed of themselves.

PERINO: Katie P.

PAVLICH: So, we all know that Governor Cuomo has bad judgment. But the idea that he would call his brother, Chris Cuomo, when he has all these resources, you know, lawyers to talk to, the government of New York to talk to you about handling the situation.

And the fact that they weren't smart enough to just maybe have a personal phone call rather than jumping on a conference call to give this advice, where there are other people listening, and they could just say that this was going on, again, shows that their judgment is really bad.

And if this were happening at another network with this massive conflict of interest, on a basic level, with Chris Cuomo being related to the governor and having to cover the city -- or the state of New York, that's a conflict by itself. But you add all this other stuff in there and you do wonder what Jesse said. Why did they continue to protect him in this way?

PERINO: Juan, that is actually a great point that Katie makes, which is, I can't understand wanting to talk to your brother if this happened. But to do it with government staffers on the phone, that seems weird, bad judgment.

WILLIAMS: Yes, it was wrong. You know, I mean, it's hard to condemn a man who wants to help his brother. I mean, blood runs deep, you know. And in the Cuomo family, politics and media, I think, are a family business. But clearly, this crossed the line in terms of journalistic ethics.

He should never have been on that call. He acknowledges that. It said in the statement and says that he wouldn't do it again. He thinks it did hurt and it's going to hurt him and his standing, you know, in this business to do that. It's just sad.

PERINO: All right, Juan, thank you. Up next, Chicago's Democratic Mayor defending her decision to only give interviews to non-white reporters. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MONTGOMERY: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot defending her decision to only give interviews to non-white reporters. That's lovely. Lightfoot claims it is necessary after slamming the "overwhelming whiteness, and maleness of the Chicago Press." The mayor said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR LORI LIGHTFOOT (D-IL), CHICAGO: The facts are the facts. And the fact is that this press corps does not reflect the diversity of the city. And it makes a difference in the kinds of coverage. We're having a powerful and important conversation around systemic racism in every institution. And press and the media can't be exempt from that conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MONTGOMERY: Juan, this is an overwhelming zero-sum racial bias on her part and there's no way around that. I don't understand how she wants to exclude an entire racial category of reporters who might ask her some very important questions. How do you feel about this?

WILLIAMS: I think she's gotten to a very important point, Kennedy. I think there's -- it's hard to argue that the legacy, the old school major media platforms in Chicago are overwhelmingly white and male. I don't think we can argue that. I think she wants to make a point of encouraging diversity in the media. It's just that she's not doing it effectively.

Instead, she opens the door to people to say something, you know, like, oh, this is reverse racism. Well, obviously, the status quo, it might be described as real racism. What she's doing though, is ineffective, I say, because it would be more effective if she said something like, I'm going to give interviews to younger people, you know, at more of the minority outlets. I'm going to give a greater share to them. Because then, it wouldn't come across in this way.

It wouldn't allow her critics to suddenly scream reverse racism. Or she could use the interviews with anybody to talk about the need to invite more voices to be heard on life and politics in Chicago. That would be more effective. I think it's just ham-handed.

MONTGOMERY: That's a really good point, Juan. And when I read this story, Dana, the first thing I thought is, well, why not go to the journalism schools at the University of Chicago and Northwestern and, you know, go back a few steps and make sure that their outreach and their recruiting includes a number of different voices. This just seems like she's protecting herself from certain reporters asking certain questions, Dana.

PERINO: She was trying to get some good press for her two-year mark after her inauguration there. I remember, especially as she really tried to make sure that the schools could reopen in Chicago, there was no show that covered it more than the ones here at Fox News. I thought she made a great point. Like, we're really happy to drive it.

And to my thinking, whenever you're trying to communicate, you're going, what's your goal? What do you want to achieve? She wants to get good press about her trend in two years. OK, great. So, then how are you going to do that? But then, by taking it to this step, she's basically just modeled all of that.

And now, that's -- no one's talking about the two-year tenure. Everyone is just talking about this. So, one, I think that was completely ineffective, as Juan said. But also, I think, it gets increasingly difficult to figure out who then is going to qualify for her -- under her categories because the Latino reporter that was offered the interview declined to do it. And he said, actually, this is -- I think that her policy is wrong. I'm not going to do it.

And when you look at the census for -- especially for younger Americans, as they start to be asked a question, how do you identify? Well, many of them are of mixed race. And it's like, well, are you white, are you brown? I don't know.

To me, a blind test in terms of who is a reporter, who's a good reporter, that would be a better way to go about this.

MONTGOMERY: Absolutely. So, Jesse, how are things going in Chicago, swimmingly, I assume?

WATTERS: Not well. What was it last weekend? 37 people shot, six kids. I know -- that wasn't -- it doesn't matter to me who asked her questions, black, white, purple. You got to ask her about how she's going to stop the bloodshed on the south side, right?

Who cares who asked her the question? She can have women ask. She can have the foreign press ask. Notice who she doesn't let ask her questions, a conservative. Conservative reporters are probably the most discriminated reporter there. You put a tenacious conservative, you give them access to city hall, they will take her apart in 10 minutes in a live shot. 10 minutes, it's all you need, because she doesn't have a plan. And this is just a distraction to divert from a really bloody summer.

And my other question is, why isn't the liberal media hiring more black reporters? She said they're underrepresented. Well, who does the hiring? It's all the liberal newspaper barons. They do the hiring in Chicago. All the network affiliates run by liberals. Why aren't rich, white, so-called open-minded liberals hiring black reporters?

MONTGOMERY: Katie?

PAVLICH: Yes. This mayor is not engaged in reverse racism. She's just engaged in racism by choosing people to cover her as a government official based on their skin color. And maybe she should be more focused on black victims in her city being shot by the dozens every weekend, rather than focusing on this absurd equity argument that is poisoned.

Any kind of logical thought in big cities around the country, you know, when you're engaging in this equity argument, you have to discriminate against somebody, some people in order to make your case for whatever diversification of whatever group of people you're trying to engage in.

And so, somebody eventually has to sue over these things, because it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act. You can't discriminate against people based on race. And if you just go based on merit and pick the best person for the job, well, then everybody gets a fair shot.

MONTGOMERY: We'll see if they're in solidarity within the Chicago Press. Thank you. A shocking claim about UFOs. A former top military official says the government has the physical proof. They've got good. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Big news about UFOs this week setting off a frenzy of speculation on whether they exist. That includes revelations from a 16-minute segment that's getting so much attention. We also have new video of an unidentified object disappearing into the ocean. And now, a former Pentagon official is making this explosive claim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIZ ELIZONDO, FORMER OFFICIAL, PENTAGON: The United States government is in possession of exotic material, and I'll leave it at that. More analysis needs to be done. There are pockets in the U.S. government that are willing to have the conversation and conduct the analysis.

I'm not going to say those right now what those elements are because I'm worried frankly for the -- for the same type of reprisal that I'm facing currently.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Dana, do you believe in UFOs? Anybody in your family, friends ever dealt with aliens?

PERINO: You're leading me down a path where someone I am very close to will get probably frustrated with me for characterizing his position incorrectly. So, for 10 years, my whole life actually, but for 10 years on this show, anytime we talk about UFOs, I'm like such a skeptic. I'm like, nope, nope, nope.

But then you had the interview on "TUCKER" last night. We had another guy on this morning on "AMERICA'S NEWSROOM." But it was President Obama in an interview where he was asked about this the other night on The Late Show in which he could -- he was very cautious in choosing his words. And I was looking at him thinking, OK, there's something here then.

He was trying not to reveal whatever he knows in terms of the classified information. I mean, I guess there's like three possible explanations in my mind that these things are out there and maybe it's something that technology we're testing or technology somebody else is testing like the Chinese or the Russians, or that is absolutely extraterrestrial. Because as that person who lives in my house who was very close to me said, they are defying the laws of physics as we know them. So, now, I'm not as much as a skeptic.

WILLIAMS: Jesse, with all this world of cameras, social media, no secrets, shouldn't there be some hard evidence?

WATTERS: Well, first of all, how did Obama let it slip and Trump didn't? I mean, God. Yes, Juan, I need to see evidence. And I don't want to see like a little funny-looking metallic scrap metal from Neptune. I want to see little green men with bug eyes, right?

I want to see a James Carville face with a gecko lizard body. That's what the evidence that I need to see. Because right now, I need to be convinced. I'm sure they're observing a swan. And I can guarantee you they're disappointed in what they're seeing down here, what are we like. It's all - - it's all violence and pandemic and the Cuomo brothers.

I'm sure they're just radioing back to the captain. Yes, this little planet is obsessed with race and Bitcoin. They're lightyears behind us. I think we just skip this whole galaxy. I'm not impressed.

PERINO: Yes. They just let their show with Princess Diana interview from 1995.

WILLIAMS: Katie, maybe we should build a wall, Katie. What do you think?

PAVLICH: Well, I'm looking at that that UFO on the screen from the Department of Defense and that looks like a cicada to me, and I've seen lots of those flying around. Also, I just want to know if I can pay these UFOs to hitch a ride to space. Like how much does it cost? Take me up. It might be kind of fun.

WATTERS: It's like an Uber.

WILLIAMS: By the way, Kennedy -- Katie, do you think that they'd be friendly or they'd be foes?

PAVLICH: No.

MONTGOMERY: Are you asking me? I would say, they are -- we don't know. If you've seen Mars Attacks, they appear friendly, but then they emulsify you. They're here. They're real. And if you're watching, hi, guys.

PERINO: Take Juan first.

WILLIAMS: I bet they'd like you, Kennedy.

PAVLICH: Come on the show.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm going. I'm going. All right, "ONE MORE THING" is up next for you right here on THE FIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: It's time for "ONE MORE THING. Dana.

PERINO: All right, Thursday, that means there's a new podcast for Everything Will Be Okay. This week I talked to my co-anchor Bill Hemmer and a University of Virginia professor Dr. Meg Jay, who wrote a book called The Defining Decade. This is all an episode devoted to the graduates of 2021. Congratulations to you all, some great advice in there.

Also, I did an interview with an adorable 7-year-old from Idaho. Her name is Emmy Eaton. She had seven questions for me and answered them all very honestly. Here's a clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMY EATON, KID REPORTER: Question number one. What's your favorite part about your job?

PERINO: Oh my gosh. I love reading the news and talking about the news. And when I worked at the White House, I used to answer questions about the news. So, this is just perfect for me this job. I love being involved in journalism and working with my friends here at Fox.

EATON: I love doing journalism too.

PERINO: I can tell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: Jesse, I highly recommend an interview for you for your book to her. Big sales.

WATTERS: That is the cutest thing I've ever seen. I love that, Dana. Speaking of my book though, Dana, we are debuting a little segment where I will be reading a titillating excerpt from How I Saved The World. So, here we go. Let's begin.

"Dick was 50 and intimidating and I was still drunk. This was a bad situation, so I got changed and jumped into his truck. 45 minutes later, I'm in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. It's a public school classroom filled with drunks and drug addicts and me."

So, if you want to find out how that whole situation got resolved, go to Amazon or HarperCollins.com, wherever books are sold.

PERINO: It was quite a tease.

WATTERS: Order that and it'll come on July 6.

PERINO: Vivid imagery.

WATTERS: Kennedy.

MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Jesse. And if you want to know where Jesse stole the name for his book, it's from my podcast which you can find on FoxNewsPodcast.com.

PERINO: It's true.

MONTGOMERY: It's called Kennedy Saves The World. Tomorrow I'll be talking to California gubernatorial hopeful Kevin Paffrath about ending high-speed rail in California, legalizing gambling across the entire state and cutting taxes drastically. He's a very interesting candidate.

And also, here's a very quick video of a dad (INAUDIBLE). He's having his gears grinded. His child was being pulled by an R.C. car. And that's remote his hand. He's doing no pushing at all. Only at Boston.

PERINO: Smart dad.

WATTERS: All right, Juan, take it away.

WILLIAMS: All right, so with the pandemic easing, big weddings are making a comeback. Take a look at a groom ready for a first look at his bride in her wedding dress, but he's the one who gets the surprise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Obviously, that wasn't the bride. It was his friend, his best man dressed up in a wedding gown. That video has attracted over 750,000 views on TikTok. Now, that's a wedding joke that's going to last a lifetime.

PERINO: It's pretty funny --

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Katie, there's no time. Yes. And thank God we're out of time --

PAVLICH: It's OK. I'll be here tomorrow. I'll see you then.

WATTERS: -- because I had a few things I was going to say about that video that I probably just shouldn't say. And we want to just go right to "SPECIAL REPORT" with Shannon Bream. Go ahead, Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.