special one up for you. go there, answer it. good night from washington, d.c. see you tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m. eastern right here on the record. mad. and that's why tonight at 8:00 p.m. we get to the bottom of a pattern of abuse. hello, everyone, i'm dana perino. welcome to the special edition of "the five" from washington, d.c. i'm joined by andrea tan ter owes, bob beckel, greg gutfeld, eric bolling. this is "the five." so we're down in washington for a little business and to pick up a change of clothes for bob. it has been two full days since the man that spilled top secret information about our surveillance program revealed edward snowden is on the lam. he was in hong kong. the former cia employee and nsa

contractor was fired by his employer, booze allen hamilton. the white house is not commenting on snowden, but lawmakers, including the speaker of the house have certainly been sounding off. >> he is a traitor. disclosure of this information puts americans at risk. it shows our adversaries what our capabilities are, and it's a giant violation of the law. >> another prominent republican, however, is more cautious with his words. >> i think it is a complicated issue. when people choose civil disobedience, they are at their wit's end and feel they have no choice. i am reserving judgment on mr. snowden, i think he thinks it was so wrong. >> andrea, when you thought they couldn't bear the weight of more scandals, this is front and center news. i would like your thoughts on it. haven't heard from you yesterday. >> all of this surveillance wouldn't bother me, dana, if

they could use it competently, but they haven't been able to use it competently. it hasn't been able to allows us to catch many terrorists in advance. we catch them when they light their underpants on fire or when it is too late like in boston. from ordinary circumstances, i am okay. it is a little broad and sweeping for me, but however, we're not in ordinary times. you look at the irs, ap, the james rosen issue, this information could be used i think as a political weapon because this is the way the obama administration operates. this is why it is different. we are in obama land. we see when they get their hands on certain pieces information, they can use it against their enemies or hand it off to their allies. that is why i think this scandal takes a more ominous tone, rather than the typical surveillance gathering issue. >> eric, political pundits of

all kinds have been weighing in. you were saying earlier you can't pinpoint where everyone will come down on it. everyone has had a different reaction. >> you can pretty much decide whether a politician, analyst, tv talking head, you can guess where they're going to come down, immigration, pro-life, pro-choice, second amendment, this is one people you can look at them, go i have no idea where he is going to come down on it. i disagree with andrea on this, i think it is unreasonable search and seizure, it is a violation of fourth amendment. it is overreach. i am not sure, here is the other thing, we don't know, they say all they're doing is taking the phone records. we don't know what else they do. once they data mine, once they store it, there's a $2 billion storage facility out west, what are they doing with it once they have it? i don't have as much confidence in my government that they'll do the right thing with the data. >> in a strange twist, you and bob actually agree on this. >> we certainly do. first of all, it has been going on longer than the obama

administration, the nsa has been picking stuff out of the air going back at least to the '70s. secondly, the issue is whether you cross a line by going into people who are not subjects of terrorism or potentially subjects of terrorism and getting their stuff anyway. when you do that, as eric says, you breach the fourth amendment. it is in my view unconstitutional. the guy should be given a pardon and in my view considered not heroic necessarily but somebody who is fed up with what he was seeing going on with the american people and decided for no gain by the way to do the right thing. >> i don't know if we know all of that. greg, what did you think on this? he is on the lam. what does that mean? >> a terrible method of escape. they can't support a lot of weight. i would have said a horse or perhaps a u nrnicorn. he exposed the security camera but not the abuses of the security camera, we make the

assumption rightly so as andrea says, this administration has done some horrible, horrible stuff. because they've done horrible things, we're ready to invalidate something that may, in fact, be constitutional. there's no difference in alan dershowitz points it out, i can't remember the name of it, you can look at the address on an envelope. you can do that. that's not, you know, invading privacy. this, looking at a phone number is the same thing. however, will it work, will it not work, we don't know. we know now it has been forever soiled because we're dealing with an administration that has ruined so many things. the irs is now an enforcement arm of a political ideology. i want to point out, too, i want to bring james rosen back into this. he was named a co-conspirator for having a few phone calls with some guy. what is "the washington post" and "the guardian" then?

if rosen is a co-conspirator, "the guardian" and "the washington post" should be in prison. >> they can name james rosen, not sure it is valid to name him as a co-conspirator because he had a phone call, not because they listened to it, because he had a phone call. can't they use the nsa data they find for the same purpose? can't they say wow, you did have a phone call with so and so, now you're a co-conspirator. and look at your e-mails, find out what else you've done. >> where is the accountability? it is like a security camera in a hotel that everybody is okay with until it is abused. you have to find a way to stop the abuse. why throw the baby out with the bath water, a cliché i hate, but it seems to make sense. if this could save lives, why destroy it because we have incompetent anyone come poops in charge. >> i don't want security cameras

in my bedroom. let's go back to the dershowitz argument. you can read the address on the nae envelope. >> unle warrant. >> if that's a warrant, it is the most sweeping warrant i've ever seen. >> so if they would go do that without a warrant, that would be illegal. however, targeting conservative groups was illegal, too, and there's also instances, want to give a hat tip to jamie winestein at the daily caller, there's instances nsa listened to phone calls of americans abroad, in 2004 they told brian ross they were listening. abuse has already happened. this administration is not just incompetent in using it to get the terrorists, that's why i want my freedom back. i am not comfortable they're not going to use it to blackmail a

senator or political enemy, i am not certain they can protect that from hackers and the chinese. >> the question is petraeus. >> what's illegal about going after conservative groups? >> this is interesting, you don't think the irs is a big deal, which is a far bigger deal than this. >> i do believe it is, but i am trying to figure out what the law is that says you can't -- >> it is the first amendment. you can't do it for political beliefs and harass them unless you have cause. what the irs scandal is about is about cause. >> one thing we need to make clear, what we know now. it is very important. all we have are a handful of leaks that snowden has given us, he says there's a lot more. we reserve judgment when we find out what more there is, if there's anything more where he went beyond and broke more laws, some of us might change our opinion. one thing we may all agree on,

we don't know, trusting the government to do the right thing with all of the information they have so far legally gained, yswa courts, whatever, legal search and seizure, trusting them is a dangerous, slippery slope. because of the irs, i am not sure i trust nsa. >> i see the point. we have been covering benghazi, doj and the irs. but do you trust the police department? the police department uses the same kind of technical expertise. >> the police department can't go ahead and break into someone's house. >> but this isn't breaking into somebody's house. >> can i tell you something? stopping someone without probable cause, that would be the police department equivalent, they can't do that. they need probable cause. nsa should have probable cause to go into americans' phone records and didn't have probable cause. >> then you would have billions, it is a collection of numbers. it is like looking at the front of an envelope.

that's what it is. >> one of the things, if we could play the congressman. general alexander is going to the hill to do briefings, president obama said everybody in congress knew about this, members of congress are questioning that. listen to this from earlier today. >> broad sweep of the fisa court's order goes well beyond what the patriot act intended, and i know because i helped draft section 215 and it was designed to prevent the nsa from going data mining. >> so andrea, i wanted to ask you about that. the domestic agenda on the hill, there's not a lot moving forward, they're trying to get immigration done, we will talk about that later. do you think there could be political will to have the left and right come together and address and go back into the patriot act to change anything? i am skeptical that could happen, but listening to brenner, a tough guy on crime and terror, i don't know, maybe

now he could. >> i am skeptical as well. it is interesting to see where the parties are falling. some on the left, and some on the right. some on the right staunchly defend this program. i think there are definitely some abuses here, however, when you look at all of the facts in front of you, you can't help but look and say this administration can't be trusted. >> you have to go to the patriot act, create harsh penalties. rather than discontinue that could stop a terrorist attack, we are talking about a nuclear potential. we're not talking about isolated minor things, talking about people that want to destroy civilization. >> the patriot act allows this to happen, goes back to the 1950s, number one. >> it was revised. >> i agree with that. but the question now is what more can this guy release? sources and methods are what matter. everybody that's anybody that understands the intelligence

community knows we have sources and methods that we take intercepts out of the air and through the telephones. you have to be an idiot in this town not to know that. >> but this is more efficient and more wide sweeping. >> it is efficient but it is shallow. instead of going deep. >> probable cause. >> no, you're getting confused with this. you don't need probable cause if you have a blanket anonymity of numbers. >> you do, otherwise you violate people's privacy. you're reading it wrong. >> i am going to take all these people's information, see if i can find something, you can't do that in america. >> you have to jump through legal hoops to do that, which they do. >> and they're willing to. >> james rosen, they went to three judges. why wouldn't they do it with fisa court. >> it is unconstitutional. >> i am about to get a cane, yank people, we have to go. coming up, senator obama debates president obama on snooping.

>> no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient, no more illegal wire tapping of american citizens. you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy. >> we're going to debate the president's comments when we come back. ♪

so pugh research has a new poll on whether phone tracking should be used to fight terror. 66% were fine with it. so what, it is the change of

views depending on who's president at the time that's key to me. for example, when bush was president, 61% of dems said tracking was wrong. now under obama, 64% say it is okay. total reversal. as drastic as sex change. nsa surveillance. there are a butt load of democrats and fair amount of republicans, too, which is why you should ask are they motivated less by principle and more by politics. defenders of civil liberties say the opposite years ago. me, i believe the world has changed. our enemy is way different and need to adapt to save our civilization. you would be wrong if you thought i am forfeiting any freedoms. i am consistent boys doing everything possible to protect my family, my way of life. collecting phone calls without listening to them, like a trash man micking up the trash. if there's a crime on the

street, they can search the local dump. you may think i am wrong, but i don't change my tune depending on who's in charge, and the administration is guilty of some really, really, really bad stuff, irs, benghazi, fast and furious, it stinks to high heaven. what stinks more, sacrificing your beliefs for the false security of lock step. andrea, what do you think of this pull, is it political or principled? >> i think it is a little of both. in politics i guess you go with the person you trust. that's why you voted for them. i think trust is eroding in president obama. and what really angers me because i think you hit such a good point in your monologue, we have a president that told us two weeks ago there was no war on terror, we are not at war with radical islam, then why are you doing all of this. the only reason we have all of these defense contractors that we are paying at one point $3 billion a year is because of a

vast government bureaucracy too incompetent to do it on its own. it begs the question what are you doing. then people like snowden are leaking that information. if we're not going to acknowledge the enemy, why waste money on all of this. i guess that's maybe not trust but that's incompetence. >> and fear and cowardess to address, if you can't call it radical islam, then who are we chasing, tea partiers? right, bob? >> no, let's think about what this is here. proliferation of intelligence groups, agencies in this town have gone up dramatically since 9/11. it was a trigger because of 9/11. we have 1.2 million contractors, million, with top secret clearances. top secret clearances are a big deal. fact is, greg, would you have endorsed this intercept operation under bush or not? >> that's what i am saying, that's why i cannot -- i was

okay with this under bush and okay with it now. if i change my tune, i wouldn't feel right with myself, i believe terror is the number one threat in the world. i know it is different under obama. i get your point. >> is it different because you forget who's president, under president bush, it was supposed to be if you have someone you suspect of terrorism or espionage, you can go after them, make it expansive, go after the whole group. not only go after a muslim or mosque or group of them in an area. this is so much far more expansive without any intent. they don't even have something they're looking for. >> under president bush? >> no, it wasn't. >> under bush you would go to fisa court. >> that's what they did here. >> i understand what it is. >> you had to have at least one foreign body communicating with an american. >> how is that different now?

>> you don't have to have anything. they have no one on the hook a foreigner communicated with anyone, blanket said i will take all verizon customers this period of time. >> second step, they have to see a phone call go out or come in before they can -- >> verizon and comcast, why do you think they did that? >> what are you asking? >> they took communications out of verizon trunk lines. >> because they had a specific communication -- >> would be, we can look at the document. they went to fisa court and had something like 33,000 requests for fisa, 11 were turned down. 33,000. >> did they not or did they get into arguments about whether they should be going and getting companies to give them that information. >> back then you mean? >> yes. >> i agreed with you then, that was different. that's my point. they were held to higher scrutiny than now. >> it is a great reason why the administration should, i am going to agree with the aclu, let's see it all, have an

explanation. because i feel like we're dealing with a bunch of clouds. i don't know what the actual facts are, the entire program, expansion of it, how it changed, how it adapted. i would say on trusting in government and the poll that you mention, trust in president bush at the time the terrorist surveillance program was leaked to "the new york times" on the front page for days and days was low during the first year of the second term. that's now true for president obama as well. but the media, it is interesting, glenn greenwald of the guardian got this story, not "the new york times." media coverage has something to do with it, also people adjust to change in a global war on terror. >> last word. >> i would love to know how the left expects us to go after terrorists and keep us safe. they're not going to acknowledge war and terror, don't like drone strikes, enhanced interrogation, now going crazy about the

surveillance program, how do they propose we go after terror. >> drone strikes and intercepts. legal intercepts. >> all right. can americans trust their government? that plus some brand new scandals. you're watching special coverage of "the five" from the nation's capital, which i think is in sacramento. back in a moment. ♪

simple question. can you trust your government? the cia can't track down a 29-year-old high school dropout running around the world leaking

national secrets. susan rice tried to say the attack was a youtube video. signatures of top guns at the agency were on the letters sent out to conservatives. and who can forget the white house still wants us to think the massacre at fort hood was workplace violence, even though he yelled and said he was trying to protect taliban fighters. bring it around, greg. we have been talking trust in the government. what's next. now we have the state department thing bubbling up. ain't easy to trust these guys. >> white house reminds me of the i love lucy episode where she's making chocolate on the conveyer belt, lucy is the american public. she's shoving it in her mouse,

smearing it all over. we have scandal fatigue. like the tennis ball machine getting hit by tennis balls in the face. no wonder crime is down nationwide. the criminals are working for the government. obama has turned d.c. to chicago without deep dish pizza. >> you can take obama out of chicago politics but can't take chalk politics out of president obama. >> when you're press secretary, waiting for the other shoe to drop, you're like this press secretary, it is like being in andrea's shoe closet, a lot more shoes can drop. one of the things this is telling america, they're at a point they're thinking i believe government has become way too big and you can't keep track of it, the whack a mole scandal. some of them seer yes, sir. it is a gross violation, flyover

states understand it well. >> bob, aggregately, it starts to add up, doesn't it? >> last time anybody trusted government, go back to john f. kennedy's years. they have been a distrusting government. you look at the polls, polls have been consistently bad, and democrat or republican, people don't trust government, haven't trusted government for a long time for good reason. >> was supposed to be different, bob, right? wasn't it supposed to be different with obama, we would have unicorns and angels. >> about the epa thing, they were done on freedom of information act request, they didn't leak it to farmers. >> weren't supposed to give the information out though. what we're talking about in the other scandals, protection of private information. irs, nsa is one, people have a right to privacy, if you have a right to privacy, we all should have it. radical environmental groups don't need the addresses of every farmer in america.

>> and can you listen to this sound by the, bill o'reilly. watch how he paraphrases it, then comment on this one. >> i don't know what happened in benghazi, i don't know what happened in the irs, i don't know what happened with james rosen, i don't know what happened with this one. i don't know what happened. they won't tell us anything. it is chaos. scandal de jour. now hillary clinton is running around with a belgian ambassador not doing what he should do. every day it is something else. >> he has a point. >> it is one of two things, either intentional deceit or incompetence on every issue. you have the epa, for example, intentional deceit to reward friends and punish enemies. you also had a story last week about the epa funding almost a million dollars in man caves for employees to work on bow flex and hang out and drink on our tax dollars. you have obama care about to start next year, kathleen

sebelius, all this stuff from benghazi, green energy, bankruptcy, to leaking personal data, you look at it and go is it incompetence or intentional deceit. deliberate punishing of enemies and rewarding of friends. >> no different than any other administration. go back and look at the polls and the trust level. >> one thing before we go, i want a tease. biggest scandal of them all in your opinion? >> god, i have to say irs, but benghazi is very close. >> benghazi for me. >> benghazi for me. bob? >> irs. >> i would say benghazi, but fort hood is probably the one that makes me the angriest. up next, here comes immigration. it could lead to amnesty for millions of illegals. is that good for america? that debate coming up and a good song coming up, too.

♪

♪ well, some historic votes today in the senate on an immigration bill that would open a door to citizenship for millions of illegals in this country. here, two proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, president obama, and republican senator marco rubio. >> this bill isn't perfect, it's a compromise, and going forward nobody is going to get everything that they want, if you think that a broken system is the best america can do, i guess it might make sense to try to block it, but if you actually are serious and sincere about

fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it. >> first and foremost thing that it does, it says to the people that are here illegally come forward, we have a process for you that you're going to have to undergo to be in this country legally. >> recently marco rubio came under fire for saying that citizenship should come before border security. eric, you spent some time on the hill today, broke away from "the five" a little bit. did you learn anything on what to expect? >> i sat with senator rand paul for lunch in the senate dining room, very nice, show you a picture later in the show. >> get a haircut? >> no, didn't get a haircut. i think they shut that down. by the way, you bought me a sandwich for lunch, too, thank you very much. i came up with something, we talked and he was talking about how texas is working with the boarder, but arizona and new mexico weren't. i said senator, what's different. he said the texas border is pretty much privately owned. if ranchers own the border

between texas and mexico, that's not the case in new mexico and arizona and somewhat california. said why don't we do this. that's all federal land, by the way. why don't we sell that federal land or give it to someone willing to secure the border. let the private sector handle border security. like you know, we have had this discussion, like an enlightening moment for a minute, i think it might certainly help. >> those private land owners don't want border security, they bring in the illegals to work. >> he said they don't want the problems and crime and they secure the border in texas. >> they also don't care about the lives but don't want people coming across on their land. ranches are so big, sometimes the heat so strong, and especially if it is a child or woman unable to take care of themselves, one of the thing ranchers do, i am making his point. >> could i ask you about the politics on this a little bit? harry reid said he would allow as many amendments as possible,

and there's one school of thought believe he is purposely doing this so republicans will add all of these amendments, then he can say see, they're blocking immigration reform, maybe republicans are adding amendments to go to their districts to say see, the democrats don't want border security but we do. who do you think is right. >> lots of gamesmanship, i have a particular opinion about senator reid's action in 2007 which ended that opportunity for comprehensive immigration reform, that was a political decision i think on his part. there's a lot of politics that go back and forth. the challenge for the politicians involved, they have to communicate very succinctly and clearly to the american people, because you're going to have so many theories on the left and the right about what's actually in the bill. you can already see it if you follow on twitter, it is very confusing. i am going to watch this debate. after it passes the senate, if it passes senate, then i'll take a good hard look what's in it. it still has to go to the house. >> republicans are going to pass

it because they have to pass it, without hispanics, have no chance of being a national party. >> but there's a lot of opposition in the house. even if they get it out of the senate this summer, there's still a lot of republicans that are not psyched about the bill at all. >> look, i think i am like most americans, i want a process but don't want a procession. this is a procession. the fact is if we do this, why not cut out the middleman, have all of the new immigrants report to dnc headquarters and they can swear them in. i want to know, will this path to citizenship include the irish or pols? i expect -- >> none of these people will vote for 15 or 20 years. >> is that why union bosses were standing with president obama today because they're interested in membership and it is the quickest way to get it? >> they were fighting it, they didn't want underpaid workers coming in. >> there's no question the republican party has to figure

out a way to bring the hispanic vote back into the fold, when george bush 40 something%, they need to do it. can i offer something else? how about increasing legal immigration? we let about a million people, how about letting two or three million in. >> why does the bill need to be a thousand pages? >> every comprehensive bill has to be a thousand pages or it is nothing. >> tell them to limit bills to ten pages, including cartoons. this is ridiculous. >> in greg gutfeld's world, they're grounded. >> government is in its roomng records. >> it should get spanked. >> everybody should. >> the craziest, fondest, wildest memories when we come back. we're cracking down on medicare fraud.

the healthcare law gives us powerful tools to fight it... to investigate it... ...prosecute it... and stop criminals. our senior medicare patrol volunteers... are teaching seniors across the country... ...to stop, spot, and report fraud. you can help. guard your medicare card. don't give out your card number over the phone. call to report any suspected fraud. we're cracking down on medicare fraud. let's make medicare stronger for all of us. so you can make easy, no-fee reloads with cash and checks... ♪ ♪ and know you're not on your own. so you can get the reloadable card that keeps up with you.

chase liquid. so you can.

♪ while we're here in washington, let's reminisce a little. dana, you miss this place? >> i spent most of my adult life

here actually, working on capitol hill, then i left for awhile and came back, now i live in new york which is great, too, so right time at the right place. my earliest memory, came here when i was seven years old, way back when companies used to pay for the spouse to come along or family to come along on any sort of annual convention. my dad was a part of sherm, society of human relations management, my mom and i got to come on a trip to washington, d.c. my mom had a friend that worked in the carter white house, got to do a tour, picked up the red phone, think it had a big impression. not long i had the tradition like my dad to pick up and read the paper. >> sounds like a euphemism for something bob might pick up. northwest quadrant of d.c. >> andrea, you lived here a number of years. >> i did. >> so? >> i loved it. i loved it. a lot of firsts.

i came as a little girl, parents brought me, my mom said maybe you'll work here one day when you get older. i worked my first campaign for pat buchanon's campaign, first internship at cnn, and bought my first home here. >> when did you work at cnn? >> for crossfire, bob. i was an intern when bob was one of our guest hosts. used to greet bob, get him coffee, bring him to the green room, roll the teleprompter. he doesn't remember any of it. shocking. >> greg, you're i'm sure a big fan of d.c. >> first job was the american spectator in arlington, virginia. president reagan came to dinner and i was there, i was in the kitchen as i watched the bomb dogs urinate on the suitcase.

watched the motorcade come in, it is amazing, coming down the block, looks like a christmas tree on its side, all of the blinking lights. i think reagan must be coming out, he was behind me, it was all a decoy so you didn't know he was there. when you see somebody that famous, you immediately think it is somebody in that person's mask, like somebody in a reagan mask, you don't believe it is real. he was drinking a screwdriver, i met him, said nonsense, la la la la la, went in the kitchen, sat with secret service guys. when dinner was done, i ate his chicken, took his plate, ate his chicken. >> didn't you eat the president's dessert? >> white house correspondent's dinner. lived here, adore the city. infatuated with the city, beautiful place, you have to come see it. you paid for it, might as well see it. one of the most impressive things, forget the capitol, the steps of the supreme court, something you have to see some point in your life, it is

amazingly beautiful. white house correspondent's dinner last year, president obama had left, i went on stage, i was like you have to eat the president's dessert if he doesn't. >> i lived here so long, i had 17 different places i lived in washington, d.c., but i did work in carter administration and first time i was invited to a state dinner, i ate the soup, which turned out to be the finger bowl. and people were saying bob, bob, bob, don't do that. it had some flowers floating on it, thought that's what you do, some flowered suit. and other time, the white house christmas party, one more thing up next.

!.

♪ time for one more thing. we are here in washington, d.c. bob, you get to kick it off. >> all right, thank you. 50 years ago today, a very important speech was given by one of my favorite presidents. take a listen. >> if an american because his skin is dark cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials that represent him, if in short he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? >> in the beginning really of a big push for civil rights from the first president willing to do it, since harry truman allowed blacks in the military.

very proud of president kennedy, great loss. >> this past weekend, read a book about abraham lincoln, called "lincoln unbound". i have to recommend it along the lines of the roots are planted to give us a better country. all right. speaking of a better country, greg gutfeld. >> just want to point out, i took the train in with dana, and the way you treat the help there is disgusting! if they don't look at pictures of jasper, she flips out on them. if you want to go read my column, it is on breitbart.com. what's it called? evil dreams big. read it. half you will hate it, the other half will like it. check it out. >> andrea? >> first, want to thank steven

hayes. >> leave it warm. >> there's a story in "the wall street journal," frozen yogurt, it is an amazing trend, everyone is eating frozen yogurt. couple weeks ago there was a report diet coke is like meth. frozen yogurt has a higher profit margin than cocaine. >> have you ever gone to one of those -- >> oh, yeah, and the bill is like 15 bucks. >> scary. >> you know the markup is -- >> i am ignoring you, keep asking if i snort frozen yogurt. markup, 500%. think about it next time. >> not good for you either. >> eric, you're next. >> quickly, show the picture from earlier, had lunch with senator rand paul on the left walking into the senate dining room, i tried to get him to do the five symbol. maybe next time he will. and i will be meeting senator

cruz and rubio. three young guns. >> why no women? >> michele bachmann tomorrow. >> you know her. >> can we move on? >> so as eric mentioned, you helped pay for the wonderful city, you should come see it. one of the great things about washington, you get to do a lot of things you don't have to pay for. one of the best is the u.s. band, military band, u.s. navy band and ceremonial guard are playing tonight at the navy memorial, part of concerts on the avenue series. look them up online. if you come to washington, make sure you try to go to one of these events, have them on the steps of the capitol, fourth of july, memorial day, go to dress rehearsal, never rains, it is a great event. >> tomb of the unknown soldier is worth seeing, too. >> i also like ford theater, portrait gallery. what do you like to see when you're here? >> irish times.

good bars. >> that's it. thanks for watching, see you back in new york city tomorrow. back in new york city tomorrow. welcome to "red eye." i'm tv's andy levy filling in for greg gutfeld who if you were washing is in washington so this shouldn't come as a surprise. now to tom shillue for our pre game report. what is coming up on tonight's show? >> david brooks writes another column that is more fun to talk about than to read which is great because only one of the people on our panel subscribes to the new york times, and that is just because he loves the sunday style section. and the film maker responsible for the excuse for the benghazi attacks is vowing to finish the film no one knew didn't have an ending because we weren't able to sit through the part of the film he did make. and can you tell me how to get to cell block d?