>> hello, everyone. i'm greg gutfeld, with bob beckle, dana perino. it sound like a common core math problem. the taliban called it a victory. still many are left scratching their heads over this trade and not just those with lice. we're all happy with the bergdahl family, but what is the message, catch one of us and get

five of yours back. why these five specific guys? they weren't working in hr. we've been told that islam phobia increases violence world wide. you can know this, they will kill again. this release also reveals our president to be a pretty lousy poker player. what did he telegraph that we're out of here, done. it could be worse. like obama, the taliban could have wanted everyone out of gitmo. we're lucky they only wanted five. poker is a bluff. this exchange of live bodies should only be called a success if week from now, theirs end up dead. i call that a fair trade. >> kimberly, that's my suggestion and why won't they do this, if they are now in qater,

why dwoent we just drone them. >> i would like to think we're going to keep a close eye on their whereabouts and pick them off like plea -- fleas. so that would be justice. let's keep an eye on that. in terms of the overall situation here. there's a lot at that we don't know. so i just want to say that i think we need to get all the information about what happens here, what happens under the circumstances of when he wandered off, what were the exact -- the context before we kind of rush to judgment on this. something that they are going to do an investigation on. they did an investigation prior, but my sources spoke directly with the father, the father has accumulated, according to him, we don't know if what he is saying is true, significant information showing that his son was kidnapped and i think the other information i have is that this individual was kind of

ostracized from his unit and was not well liked. doesn't make any excuse for him wandering off, but i think he's going to have to answer to that six months after this reintegration? >> what do you think. >> i think droning is out of the question. we negotiated with these guys. they are terrorists, we negotiated with terrorists. all that b.s. we don't do that, we clearly do that. is the administration happy by the one or the five or is it the six jihadists that they let go, everyone you speak to said he purposefully walked away from -- it was on a post, apparently a guard post when his shift ended, he came back and asked his commander if he could bring his gun with him and leave. the commander said no. he left his gun and took a compass and canteen and walked.

if that's the case and we've heard three separate people that served with him that said the same thing that he wap dered off. >> what was the purpose and intention? >> before he did this now, this is really important, he emailed his parents with these quotes. these aren't speculation. this is what we understand his parents to have been emailed from bowe bergdahl, i'm ashamed to be an american. the u.s. army is the biggest joke in the world and the horror that is america is disgusting. so that man sends those notes to his parents, granted private emails and then walks off and then there's a deal negotiated for him? who is the bigger fool here? is it us or them? by the way, we got five back and we got one that is disgusted with america. >> does it matter? he just spent five years. i can't imagine a hell worse

than that. does it matter about his intentions when he walked off five years ago at this point? >> i think to understand the full story, it does, and this is what i think -- these two things can be true and they are not at odds with one another. you can have compassion with bergdahl and his family, and you can also have compassion for those soldiers who lost their lives in -- and their families who searched for him. i don't think it's unreasonable for the american people to expect some more information from the white house, which in itself was in -- susan rice saying he was a hostage. jay carney saying he was not. they seem to have not been aware of the pentagon report in 2010. maybe they were and we aren't. there's a lot to be said about this. including what happens to the rest of the terrorists at gitmo.

if you release five in qatar, they have to stay there -- qatar, that place over there, they only have to be there one year. i'm sure we'll try to keep a close eye on them but as you suggested the recidivism rate for terrorists leaving gitmo, sometimes they are almost more deadly after they left than they were the first time around. >> bob, who got the better of the deal? >> first of all, let's put some things in context. united states military does not leave one of their own anywhere, whatever the circumstances, and they haven't. >> well, we have left some people. >> in this case, somebody that you know that's alive and they went out there looking for him. the other thing we have to be careful here is we don't know -- people are pretty loose lipped here about condemning this guy. we don't know the situation. if he really did -- was a deserter, and they knew that,

then he should be in jail awaiting the military court justice to deal with him but he's not. that's the second thing i would say. and the third thing i will say about negotiating with terrorists. we are negot these are all terrorists states. these nation states are nothing but terrorists. they harbor these people. they do the rest, we're not really negotiating with terrorists. >> what state, is -- what country does taliban reside in? that's who we negotiated with. >> we negotiated through the pakistanis, as far as i know, the qatar. >> yes, we did use the qatar infrastructure to negotiate. we're not negotiating with another state, we're negotiating with the enemy, the terrorist group. >> islamic terrorists pretty much control most of the countries in the middle east. >> but we're not negotiating with iran or iraq or -- >> if you were, you would be

negotiating with islamic terrorists. >> the problem is the optic of the situation are bad, left, right, and center. bottom line and we'll talk about it a a little bit later. we don't even know if the proper protocol is followed. one he's an american. he should be brought back here and determine what exactly happened. i'm sure he's going to come back i had no intention of deserting. what i also know about him is that he was someone who was very very into the special forces. wanted to be a navy s.e.a.l. worked at the shooting range that the s.e.a.l.s all shoot at. he was very enam or -- enam mored with the unit -- i'm horrified that people died trying to look for him. if he was trying to go out on

his own to do that, that's also inappropriate and not okay, but we don't know yet. but what i also don't like is how this whole thing went down. as for his father, his father my source also told me was going to go over there to try to negotiate the release of his son on his own because he was so frustrated. the father with the long hair, the beard, advised that was a bad idea. the father was trying to learn the language to communicate to save his son. >> let's assume for a moment he was a deserter. should we not have gone after and tried to get him out? >> i think we did try. i -- that's why people are dead. >> we trade five high-level operati operatives. >> would you leave him there. >> i would continue to do what -- find him, don't trade five dangerous -- it's like -- five of their top commanders back. and forget the recidivism rate.

is there any question these guys are going to kill again? >> if they had kidnapped general petraeus, any u.s. soldier -- >> here's a question that also has to be answered that's not clear yet and hopefully it will be which is that if it is true that attacks in that area increase with frequency and that there were even additional lives lost in america because we know the casualty rate goes up in 2010, what information, if any, either willfully or under duress did he provide to the enemy? that's something worth knowing. >> that's a leading question and putting that on the table suggests -- >> why is it not a reasonable question to find out? >> you are taking a leap about an increase in violence and this guy wandering off a post? >> is it not unreasonable to find out what the answer is? >> he's not a kid. he's a man. he join the military. >> the point is you are not supposed to wander off, good intentions or bad, because it

jeopardizes the integrity of the unit. >> that's something you can't do. >> the other thing too, the game that the administration plays with language, not calling him a hostage, calling him a prisoner of war, it suggests that you only exchange prisoners of war when the war is over but we're the only side that's saying the war is over. we're basically telegraphing that the war is over. they are never going to stop killing us. >> look at the timing of this. we're pulling out. we're not going to leave him there and the whole thing is very suspect. >> is anyone else a little bit skeptical about the father with the beard? the father speaking pashtu because he's afraid his son forgot english in five years of

captivity? >> i may be wrong, i'm pretty sure i'm going to remember to speak english. >> what does the suspicion mean? he's got a beard, therefore he's pro islam -- >> maybe i'm nuts, bob. it's not adding up. >> it's a rush to judgment or at least an illusion -- you are alluding to something that is absolutely unprovable. >> if you didn't see your son for five years and you thought he was in a foreign country would you learn a different language to you can communicate with him? >> he was arguing it's a form of outreach he was going to say. the one thing that did mention was the book, that's what got to me is a book coming out. >> it's homeland, season 3.

>> there you go. what would you do if you were a father and you thought this could help? >> i would want to go over there and i would try to learn the language -- no one disputes the father is a highly intelligent individual. the son was learning the three different languages in the area they were in. the whole thing is very bizarre. >> people who know the facts so far have not had this guy arrested, that's all you need to know. >> they gave away prisoners to get him out. >> also we have a report of nondisclosure agreements so we can never know that's not going to be acceptable to anybody, bipartisan members of the congress. >> okay, kids. all right. we're not done. next, did president obama break the law by keeping congress in the dark about the bergdahl swap. keep it right here on the fox.

>> this administration says it's committed to leaving no manned behind. that's why it spent so much trying to rescue bowe bergdahl but what about the americans killed in benghazi, two were navy s.e.a.l.s, many want to know why they were left behind when there may have been time for them to be rescued. thoughts on benghazi. eric, there's some drawing the comparison and juxtaposing the two incidents and say how can you square the two together,

hey, we didn't go in when we could have had time to intercede in benghazi, we let four americans die, however, we went to great lengths to secure someone's release with somewhat of a questionable background? >> to be fair, there's probably no saving of the first two, chris stephens and his guard were probably dead before washington even knew about it. two moerns died, so there wasn't that sense of alarm. that's an american sitting in a mexican jail right now. there's no sense of alarm. we're going to trade five taliban members for one guy who may or may not have deserted. we gave five high-ranking taliban officials for one guy.

about six weeks ago there was a guy named al zo-aheri who recommended that taliban kidnap americans. stop negotiating with these idiots. we're putting americans more at risk by doing this, by just -- for some reason, one back and take a victory lap. >> this is what they intended. they wanted to be able to achieve these exact results that's why they are to gloating and cheerful about what happened here rm it's bad for the u.s. for sure and we still don't even know who it is we rescued so to speak in terms of the facts of the situation. >> the only link i think you can draw between these two stories, the benghazis and the release of bergdahl is politics.

rolling stone said that the potential release of this soldier would help an election. likely, democrats agreed, including bob, that politically playing down benghazi in 2012 helped win an election. so that's how it works here. whatever is politically expedient is what is solved first. >> we're not talking about leaving veterans to die with the v.a. scandal today are we? we're talking about what happened here, it's also to move it off the page. bob. >> i don't talk about benghazi. >> ever. >> nope. >> dana, i'm going to have you listen to a a little bit sound here. >> sergeant bergdahl simply wasn't a hostage. he was an american prisoner of war captured on the battle field. >> did the u.s. negotiate with terrorists for his release? >> what we did was ensure as always the united states does not leave a man or a woman on

the battlefield. >> no longer can it be said that the u.s. doesn't negotiate with terrorists? >> i wouldn't put it that way. i wouldn't say that at all. >> how would you say at all? >> when we were in in battles with terrorists and they take an american prisoner, that prisoner is still a u.s. man or woman, we still have an obligation to bring that person back. >> what do you think about the talking points here? >> i think if anybody is going to be careful about something they say on the sunday shows it would be susan rice. for good reason -- she was given bad information, she repeated it willfully without even sort of skepticism when it came to benghazi. on this case, they says -- she says clearly, bergdahl served with honor and distinction. the pentagon report says the opposite. if i were here, i would at least said we're glad he's in safe hands. he's getting the proper

attention he needs. america deserves a little more caution when it comes to whatever our new policy is, i don't think that candy crowley was asking an unreasonable question. i think the white house should have had much better answers before putting someone on tv. >> whenever we negotiate with saudi arabia, iran -- >> states, states. >> you are negotiating with terrorists. >> you should be for fracking, and -- >> i am. >> and you should be for the pipeline. >> i am. >> that's good. you should get your other liberals involved in that because then we don't have to negotiate with terrorists. >> the sponsor of terrorism, saudi arabia is negotiating with terrorists. >> next block, you are going to be totally against these carbon taxes. >> what? >> exactly. that one is coming. >> let's get a little bit of sound in here. you know that i love the law,

right. so i hoep you do too. we're going to tackle the question whether this is illegal that the white house did, was this a violation of the law. take a listen to jonathan turley did the white house violate law? >> they did. to make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law that the president has been accused of. when the law was given to the president, he used a signing statement. he used one in this circumstance and said i'm going to sign this but i think that notice requirement is unconstitutional. >> keep in mind, jonathan turley he's a liberal professor. >> what i i like turley, he

calls them as he sees them. i actually agree with the president. i believe in the power of the executive. i can understand why congress is frustrated. i also understand that jay carney last year said under no circumstance would any prisoner release happen without consulting congress. they did not consult congress and i think that the senators are right to raise the question just as i would have expected and they did expect senators clinton and obama to question things that president bush did. the hypocrisy is unbelievable. the amount of front page coverage given to the fake outrage that democrats don't seem to have, they can't muster it up. if there was some consistency, maybe americans wouldn't be disappointed with their

government. the point they would not do it. bob, that's just baloney. >> why? >> i can't even argue with -- >> i think turley is probably right. they went over the edge. >> what was the rush? >> what was the rush to what? >> well, if the law is -- congress needs 30 days -- >> they are claiming his health -- >> so his health was in such bad shape and as we find out he's pretty darn good. in fact, he does speak english too. what's the rush? it's five years. 30 more days, giving congress the heads-up, i think they had like four or five days also. >> politicalco had a story that said congressional and white house relations have never been better. that's laughable. >> i'm interested in how the media will approach this and when will there be a book deal and will this guy, once he's back, become a heroic critic of

american hawkishness. will he become a tool? the media is a -- >> signing presidents are -- statements are used by president where they can say this is where i disagreed. >> it would be nice to have that reasonable attitude in 2005 and 2008. clinton and obama were leading the charge. >> there you go. i'm leading it off. shut it down right there. check out "the kelly file" tonight. she's going to talk to two soldiers who served with bergda bergdahl. and coming up, president obama is bypassing congress again. this time to take a big swing at coal. details next.

>> any of you remember -- remember when he said this, obama? >> under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. >> he probably electricity rates would skyrocket and he's keeping that promise. his epa unveiled new regulations today mandating 90% carbon emissions reduction in power plants. the president is bypassing congress yet again with his pen.

bring it around, bob, i want your response to this. >> i'm not sure where your figures came from. >> chamber of commerce. >> that's a good source. let me put it this way, does he have the right under the law to do it? yes. i would have liked to have seen him say, while we do this simultaneously, we're going to approve the construction of nuclear power plants, 18% of our energy comes from coal. if we can take 18% of our energy and get it into nuclear power which we should have done years ago, there's still time under this change of regulations, we could do away with coal and use nuclear power plants. >> do we also understand that you can't take a nuclear power

plant up and running in 5, 10 years? >> what bothers me, we could turn around this economy, we could open up federal lands and open up some dominance in the energy field, instead of being dependent and weak. it's problematic all i can see is the dollar signs of the law, the tax revenues and the jobs could be held by americans. >> i love the fact coal is used to burn -- coal is burned to create electricity. what if all of those people with priuss going to do? the white house is the most

invasive tool since the colno scope, he's running a country right now like it's a local art college. who is going to provide the electricity for your ipad or your preus. >> what you can do is start ugeds oil and gas to fire your electric plants? do you want to talk about the china doubled carbon emissions or do you want to talk about -- >> i want to talk about it all. in the united states, since 1990, we have reduced our carbon dioxide emissions to about 1990 levels at this point. so economic growth actually means that you can have a cleaner environment. what i think that they are trying to do now is try to take an old law, the clean air act which worked very well for pollutants that caused asthma and stuff like that, and then

apply it to climate change and it actually can't work because the technology doesn't exist. if it's a global problem, china has doubled their emissions, including india, latin america, including brazil. to what end? coal matters a lot to our economy and if you want to grow the economy, which i think president obama says he wants to do, you are going to need more energy. so i'm for this. i'm for everything to have on the table. i will tell you this based onment epasm's own predictions, a complete shut down of u.s. coal fired power plant is projected to reduce by 1-20th of a degree so what end are we doing this? >> the end was to exaggerate and manipulate data about climate change in order to get into our wallets. look around the world.

the only alternative to coal for millions of people is death. for every country that figures out how to use coal, they bring themselves out of poverty and there's billions of people that don't have any coal are burning things that are deadly like feces. there are people out there that would die for a smidgen of our luck. >> it doesn't matter, unless the rest of the world goes along, we can just go ahead and do what we want to do. >> if it's not going to solve the problem, we could actually grow our economy so we can help other people actually not die a horrible death. >> i'm speaking globally, not locally, bob. >> that's what i'm saying. >> global is coal. >> senate democrats in tight races in west virginia, montana, kentucky, even alaska are pushing away from the president on this. >> the white house understands it's politics. we understand it's politics as

well. tom steyer wants to rush it through. >> mike bloomberg takes on mccarty i

>> we've been telling you about liberal intolerance on college campuses this commencement season. michael bloomberg got an invite to speak at harvard's commencement and some people may have been surprised when they heard this. >> today, on many college campuses it is liberals trying to suppress conservative ideas. this spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of

college commencement speakers withdraw or have their invitations reskinned after protests from students and to me shockingly from senior faculty and administrators should know better. liberals silence a voice. this is an outrage and we must not let it continue. >> so universities used to be a place where you went to open your mind and it seems come to a place that you narrow it. according to the fec, 96% of all campaign contributions from ivy league faculty and employees went t barack obama. are you surprised? >> that's the point. it's trickling down from the gurus of garbage. the only entity less tolerant

than the teacher's lounge is the taliban, which smells better. the debate is like a gym for an argument. these students exit these campuses intellectually flabby. >> the complaint to hr about being bullied all the time. i don't know anything like that. eric, i want to ask you today that 33% that people 18 to 24 are now living with their parents. this is right after college and fully a third are living with their parents. >> that's scary. that was a great speech and he went on, bloomberg continued on and actually cited that 96 or 7 97% of faculty members who donate to democrats. we literally pointed out where's the open mindedness of this and seeing the argument on that. he pushed back on that. you have to tip your hand.

the people in the stand, they don't look very happy. >> that was the interesting thing. the content of that speech, instead of being one -- it was a direct challenge to the faculty rather than just encourage kg to the students. >> the faculty point he made was right on the money because there are a very small percentage of them that are not -- that are not conservative, but let me say this that to indict all liberal students and say that all liberals, a very small fraction of liberals on these students protested these people. i said from the beginning, i thought they never be asked to be out a speak like that. they should do it. >> when recenten -- roanen is ready to go to college, will it matter to be open minded or not?

>> yes. apparently he's lookingfor one that he can walk to. i want him to go to school that has some free thinking from both sides. all different viewpoints. the comment that you made is so telling. it's become a place you are supposed to narrow your mind. it's like putting a pair of tight spanks when you go college. you become a programmed robot. >> it's always curious to me why is it that conservatives don't go into teaching? >> because it's impossible. >> because those who can do and those who can't -- >> why don't they go into it? >> you are unwelcome. maybe that's it. people do like -- >> i'm unwelcome at this table. >> no, we love having you. >> that is not true. you have so many job perks. >> if they don't have the

courage to go to school and teach. >> wow, i would say it has something to do with tenure and unions. more ahead, two big restaurant chains are telling customers they can't pack heat while they

bulldog: [yawning] it's finally morning! i can't wait to get to mattress discounters because the tempur-pedic bonus event is ending soon.

i'll have first pick from the huge selection of tempur-pedic mattresses. then, i'll get to choose $300 in pillows, sheets, and other free gifts. on top of that, up to 48 months interest-free financing. it's a beautiful day for mattress discounters' tempur-pedic bonus event. mmm, some alarm clock you turned out to be. ♪ mattress discounters

a few weeks ago, members of the gun rights group walk into a chili's restaurant carrying assault rifles. these guys are so out there, even the nra is pleading with this group to stop this type of behavior. congratulations, nra. okay, what do you think, good idea or bad idea?

>> here's the deal. it's second amendment rights versus property rights, so the gun owners have a right to do it, by right they do. business owners have a right to say stay out of our establishment if you are going to brandish an open carry. you leave it up to the franchisee les a -- let a businessman decide. i don't think any of these -- i don't think the other ones have said it's a blanketwide decision. >> i only take tums into chipotle. >> you and greg don't like that one sauce. >> none of these proclamations is going to make anything

better. >> all i can say is i hope a lot more restaurants do it and i don't see any reason having a gun in a restaura

>> top one more thing, i'll go first. when someone dies, rituals go away too. mom would ask me to call the moment if i landed. always worried if those big planes would make it across the sky. the last night, there was the realization that no one would pick up on that end ever. so maybe i don't have to call her anymore because she's here with me.

>> i'm very sad about the passing of your mother, what a wonderful spirited, incredible woman. >> don't make me cry. >> i know. we have passing of another woman, alice, you remember her from the brady bunch. she was an emmy award winning actress. she has been quoted as saying that she considered her ordinary looks an asset. i know at least a couple hundred glamer gals who are starving in this town. she said i would rather be myself and eating. >> that's why she dated sam the butcher. >> i like it. i want to give a shout out to bret baier. he has a new book out. it's called special heart. his son had congenital heart

disease. he had surgery when he was only one-year-old. he survived and now he's a thriving little boy. bret writes about the whole ordeal, 1 in 100 children born with some type of congenital heart detective. i remember when he came in the day before, to see president bush, every cent of this book goes to charities to help children with heart disease. so you can see me on special report tonight. you can see him on o'reilly as well. >> the picture i'm about to show you is my beautiful lovely daughter mckenzie and her date at her senior prom and it's been commented on me several times, how can somebody that beautiful come from me, well, she did in fact and it may have been just the luck of the draw, but i love her very much.

she's on her way to colorado to go to college, and she is a delightful young lady. >> and you are going to her graduation ceremony. >> she looks beautiful. >> i was going to talk about snap chat, but instead, let's do this. what i learned today, bob beckle, pro fracking, pro life, anti liberal islamists. my friend i would like to welcome you into the conservative party what took you so long. >> the daily show thinks so too. >> he's very conservative with his taxes. >> don't forget to set your dvr >> it's tuesday june 3rdrd. questioning his loyalty. those who served side by side with bergdahl say he is no hero.

>> he did not serve the united states with honor. he violated his oath when he deserted us. >> brand new evidence, he might have been helping the enemy. >> a chaotic scene caught on camera. a pregnant woman tasered by police lying unconscious on the ground. what witnesses are now saying. >> trained for war machines. that's how one worker described rotc. what about leadership dedication and discipline. should we cutting programs? we report you decide. "f "fox & friends first" starts right now. ♪ >> good morning. you are watching "fox & friends first" on this tuesday morning.

look at that shot of time's square there in new york city. i am ainsley earhardt. >> i am heather childers. >> nice to have you back. stunning accusations aimed at doug bergdahl. >> his roommates say he abandoned his brothers in arms to talk to the enemy. this morning they are questioning his loyalty. >> right now army sergeant bergdahl is being treated at a hospital in germany as he recovered from five years of captivity a clearer picture is em americaing about his ash-- e about his capture. he walked away from his base. several soldiers claim he deserted and put americans at risk. he spoke exclusively with fox news on the kelly