Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino, along with Kennedy, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City. And this is The Five. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee facing new pressure to recuse himself from the probe into Russia's election meddling, as President Trump attempts to shift the focus to the Clintons. More on that in just a moment. Democrats are calling for Devin Nunes to remove himself from the Russian investigation following news that he reviewed intelligence material on the Trump team on White House grounds, and then went back to speak about it to the president. Fellow committee member, Jackie Speier, goes even further. She thinks that he should step down as chairman. [Begin Video Clip] If you become a White House whisperer, you are not being independent. I think he has tainted the committee. I'm asking for him to step down. In the interest of what we all care about, which is the integrity of our intelligence community. [End Video Clip] Meanwhile, Nunes maintains that he has done nothing wrong. [Begin Video Clip] Why not recuse yourself in this investigation? I still don't know why. You guys give me a reason to recuse myself, I might consider it. Your critics say you are just too close to the Trump administration to lead this investigation. I don't know that they've actually said that. And will you share your sources? We will never reveal sources. You feel you can credibly lead the investigation? Yeah, this is politics. I understand that. People have to play different sides that they want to play. It's OK. I'm used to it. [End Video Clip] The chairman says he won't recuse himself from the Russia probe and Speaker Ryan doesn't think he should either. Here's the White House reaction today. [Begin Video Clip] It's not up to me. He's a member of the House. He's appointed by the speaker. I do think that he's running in the investigation which we asked for. There is somewhat of a double standard when it comes to classified information. You all report on stuff with sources that are leaking, illegally leaking classified information. That's appropriate and fine. No one questions that, the substance and the material. When two individuals or however many are engaged in the process, have a discussion that is 100 percent legal and appropriate and clear, suddenly the obsession becomes about the process and not the substance. All right. So, Kennedy, I was away for one day and this story grew more legs. I don't know what to do here. It keeps going. And I feel like the White House -- they want to get away from it and then the president tweets about it. And we actually have his tweet here where he said about the Clinton's and why isn't there an investigation into Clinton and any money they would've taken from Russia. So he is trying to do a what-about- them? OK. You're absolutely right because a spider has only supposed to have eight legs. And this one has turned into a centipede. But the thing is just because you sprout some new limbs doesn't give reason to amputate all the others. There may be reason to look at the Clintons, absolutely. And I think the present is right when he talks about those curious Bill Clinton speaking fees from the Russian bank that had very interesting timing with the Iranian deal that Hillary Clinton rubber- stamped when she was Secretary of State. But having said that, Devin Nunes has, I think, done a really bad job of explaining himself, and he has allowed the story to consume him. And as you know, having been in a post where you really have to control a large part of the message, he has let the message get away from him. And that allows for more suspicion. And I think you know there are some important questions that are not being asked by either party. And that is, were civil liberties violated, was the law violated in the gathering of intelligence that was either untoward or illegal? And I think that's the question we deserve an answer to and we are looking in the wrong place. So there's really three pieces to the investigation, Eric. There is the meddling from Russia into the U.S. election, there is the allegations of collusion in the investigation about the Trump campaign and people from Russia, and then there's the unmasking and leaking. So there are actually three issues. Where do you think this goes from here because there was going to be a hearing, then there wasn't going to be a hearing? Then there are questions about whether the former deputy attorney general who was fired by President Trump was going to be allowed to testify. The White House disputes, the Washington reports. I am just trying to figure out, where do we go tomorrow? It has been a flurry of news going back and forth. But again, here, we are talking about whether or not Devin Nunes is capable of presiding over a committee investigation. And I think he is. You may not like him, you may not like the fact that he met his source at the White House, but the bottom line is we're going to see most of that. We're going to see the testimony by most of these people. Some of it happens behind closed doors, but it's not just Nunes deposing various people. There is bipartisan representation in these things, I think he's capable of doing it, but the more controversy, the more questions surrounding why did he get out of a cab, I think you're right. You're pushing the Democrats to give you a reason to say hey, independent counsel, when you really don't need it. It's going to come out when we watch all the testimony. Yates claims or someone claimed that she wasn't allowed to testify and then they produced, or I think our John Roberts produced a letter that was sent to Yates and the lawyer responding back saying she was in fact notified of this testimony. And I think also there were supposed to be some testimony yesterday that got pushed off so that Comey and Rogers could testify. They said they weren't going to show up, so that all got delayed. In the confusion, you are right. It's time, let's just have this hearing. Let's get these people up. Right. And the other question is if Representative Nunes needed to go to the White House to meet somebody, why doesn't that somebody working in the White House call the White House counsel's office or the president and say I have something I really feel I need to show you. Because then the next day, Nunes goes back to the White House and then after he tells the press about it, not telling his colleagues on the committee, and briefs the president on what he heard. [Crosstalk] I kind of lost what you are saying there for a minute. I followed it perfectly well. It stinks to high heaven, Dana. This conspiracy stinks to high heaven. Who supplied Nunes with the intelligence? Ted Cruz' dad. As a way to deflect the media from Pizza Gate which is actually harboring President Obama's long form birth certificate, it all comes around. Here is the deal, Nunes is guilty of premature accusation. [Crosstalk] He should have waited -- he should have waited a while before he actually had the information. If he held back, we wouldn't have this problem. And now, everyone is running around and we don't know a lot of the answers. No. So we are spending all this time speculating. Meanwhile, to me, I go back to watching the media. It's amazing how they are tearing into the story like a pit-bull. You know, they are salivating because there is chum in the water. But where were they? Again, where were they when you talk about the IRS or the DOJ or Benghazi? This is why people hate the media because they are selectively investigating. They are selectively being Woodward and Bernstein. They are now hot on the story because they don't like the president. There are a lot of great stories over the last eight years that weren't covered. I want to point out that both sides are guilty, I think of this. When the Democrats say Russian collusion, the Republican say where's the evidence. When the Republicans deep-state mutiny and illegal leaks, the Libs say where is the evidence. It is like when you play rock, paper, scissors, and everybody keeps going this. It just keeps going. So just have the investigation. Right. [Laughter] Paper covers rock. Bob, do you think that the Democrats really want this go to an independent counsel or special prosecutor? Because, as you know, as soon as that happens, everything goes very quiet, and then, President Trump would be able to drive more on his agenda and have to worry about it. We don't have to worry about that. By the way, I think we should go back and investigate why there were not more Secret Service in Lincoln's assassination. It is very important. [Laughter] Look, the fact of the matter is, Nunes was way out of line. Nobody but nobody would not at least tell their co-chairmen what is going on. The other thing that Spicer said in his way of screwing everything up, he said it was cleared. He said it was cleared. The last thing he said, it was legal and it was cleared. But when somebody cleared this guy in, called. [Crosstalk] But you can't get into the White House without clearance. Yeah, but somebody cleared him at that hour of the night when he was coming out of a cab, coming in there and then going into some secret room, and then going behind his master, and telling them what he's got. [Crosstalk] You are right about the first part, but then you make this leap that no one knows and will only come out in testimony under oath. You're right. He needs to be cleared to get in. That doesn't mean he met with the person who cleared him. [Crosstalk] Oh, really? Yeah. Can I finish? Please. Thank you very much. Now, I forgot what I was going to say. [Laughter] The fact of the matter is, as everybody can agree on, this is a result of the taping or intercepts of two foreign nationals, and people got caught up in that. Anybody within a half-mile range of an intercept is going to get caught up in it. Thousands of people get caught up in it. Now, the only question is, why are they named? Now, that I think is a legitimate question that ought to be answered. But Nunes not only should drop out of the committee member, he should get out of Congress and get himself a good criminal lawyer. [Crosstalk] What you do is you take someone chatty, you know, someone like Sergey Kislyak. Who? [Crosstalk] . like a young cool guy trying to get in. He is the Russian ambassador. He got killed in Studio 54, you know. [Crosstalk] Yeah. Anyhow. And you can't say oh, by the way, they may have named those guys. The unmasking, illegally unmasking Americans names could be a very, very serious crime. It could be. [Crosstalk] Up to 10 years imprisonment for doing that, if they do it illegally. Yeah. Exactly right, but the question is, is it illegal if you do it as a sidebar investigation on Russia. No. . that the name comes up that you could turn it over. Once you unmask them, that's the illegal act right there. [Crosstalk] One of the things the chairman said is that some of the names weren't unmasked, but he could tell who it was because he worked on the transition. He's a puppy dog. [Crosstalk] It might be sloppy in terms of the hiding of the names. It is like someone who is in Angela Lansbury fan watching Murder She Wrote and figuring out the ending of the show in the first seven minutes. Oh, you, too. Does that annoy you? [Crosstalk] I say this once a week and I wills ay it again. The big winner is always going to be Putin. The longer the circus goes on, the harder the shirtless man on a lion laughs. He is a global stink bomb. And right now, he is in his underwater fortress rubbing his hands. [Crosstalk] You mentioned the IRS investigation, something along this line. Yes. This allegation, if it's true, that Putin and the Russians somehow got WikiLeaks to get this stuff out, it is they were single atrocious thing a country could do to another. [Crosstalk] Unmask Putin for what he is. He's a thug, he's an autocrat, and he ought to be gone, too. [Crosstalk] I can't believe you are agreeing with Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney said this is an act of war. It certainly is. It certainly is. It technically is. Again, you have factions within the Republican Party. If you have people around Putin who contacted the WikiLeaks and said leak that stuff, it it's an act of war. It also will ruin Trump, and it should. OK. A, it could be, as Trump said, a hoax designed as paybacks for the Democrats' lost or it could be a massive scandal, an act of war by Russia to destroy a republic, or it could be a bit of both, which is the answer. C, it is a bit of both. It's never one extreme or the other. It is somewhere in the middle. And can we also point out it's been going on for decades? [Crosstalk] The Russians are trying to influence and hack into. [Crosstalk] However, per the intel community saying yes they have tried, but they've been doing it for decades. And no, it had no effect on the outcome of the election. They said that yes, it's true, we have intercepted them, but they have never tried to use a third party to discourage people from voting for another person. How did they do that? With fake news? [Crosstalk] No, with WikiLeaks and the emails. What about the emails we got from the State Department? Which ones? Because of the Hillary Clinton investigation. [Crosstalk] Her server investigation. I mean, are you saying that the Podesta emails were somehow more damning? [Crosstalk] Oh, absolutely. [Crosstalk] It was awful. I tried to make it. The mushrooms, do not hold up with cream. My new rule is that anyone who works in news should say whoa, it is true. Don't do it ever again. All right. Ahead, should social companies like Facebook do more to help fight terror when they have the capability to do so? Greg makes a very strong case when The Five returns. Back in the days of world wars, American companies didn't think twice about pitching in to help fight the enemy. Car companies help bolster tanks, food companies created rations, sometimes they had to do it, but no one had to twist her arm. Unlike today, consider the internet firm WhatsApp owned by Facebook. It was the communication tool used by the terrorist in last week's attack in London. So what if your product during a time of war happened to help out the enemy? It's not your fault. But why must we pressure you to help? British home secretary Amber Rudd is calling WhatsApp out for giving the enemy a place to hide after security services failed to access the terrorist last message, which was sent minutes before he killed those innocent people. Something tells me he wasn't texting emojis to his pet goat. WhatsApp lets users send end-to-end encrypted messages, which are sealed off so Scotland Yard can't access what could be a key clue. Now, in California, it may be hard for a CEO to imagine his family being victims on that bridge last week, but why not try? If one clue prevents the deaths of loved ones, those loved ones could one day be yours. Here is a fact. If Facebook were a religion, it will be the third largest behind Islam and Christianity. Its success is rooted and capitalizing on the human desire to bond. So if you make billions of dollars of connecting them, may be the least you can do is help keep them from being blown apart. The thing that drives me nuts, Dana. Yes? I know it's not Google's fault or Facebook's fault or Twitter's fault. They are all probably wonderful people. But why do you have to these days pressure people to cooperate? I don't know. We go through this over and over again. And I don't know why there can't be some sort of revolution or memorandum of understanding between the companies and law enforcement, because this really is, at this point, you'd have to say are you standing with the terrorists? So, remember, you are either with us or against us. Right. But I was thinking also about video cameras. Let's say that he has gone in and bought something beforehand. We have seen many convenience store cameras footage that lead us to close to figure out what happened in a crime. Yeah. They turn it over. Yeah. I don't understand why then WhatsApp thinks that's any different? What benefits them? I understand privacy. I get the privacy part. But at some point, my right for privacy should be possibly superseded possibly by my right to be protected against somebody who is planning an attack. I think you can have both. And, Eric, you know, I don't understand why the war on terrorism is different from fighting the Nazis, like because it is global and it is harder to grab, I don't know what it is. I would agree at that part of it. And again, this is going to be one of those philosophical discussions that we have that may be -- a lot of people don't like my stance on it. But if you ask WhatsApp to turn over, to break their encryption, you've basically told them you are going out of business. Then you talk about all the other encrypted websites to go out of business. Now, yes, I understand this whole security versus safety issue. The constitution does say until you are a target or you know, there's a court that says you are a target, you are supposed to be able to keep your privacy. Here's the sliding line. Yes, terrorism, everyone would agree, if it is a terrorist, open this out, find out who did it, and why, and how. Does murder fall in the same category? OK, fine, maybe it does? Does rape, does kidnapping, what about car theft, what about cheating on your spouse? Someone has to draw that line. [Crosstalk] All those are all crimes until you got to cheating on your spouse. [Crosstalk] Because it's a gray area, which crimes, which things do you want to break open your right to privacy? I mean, I think if there's a murder on the loose, it's enough. Kenny, what do you think? I think actually WhatsApp is showing how good their technology really is and they are doing a service to their customers because they realized this is a company like Apple in the San Bernardino case. They are not going to fall to pressure. Now, what we saw from Facebook is a statement saying no, we absolutely are doing whatever we can to work with Scotland Yard and we feel for the victims of this tragedy, and of course, of all acts of terrorism. And by the way, these companies, these big tech companies, regularly work with law enforcement. And they honor warrants. So it's not as though they built a terrorist loving wall in Silicon Valley. I say. What they have built is technology that is so good that their customers want real encryption. That they can't break, they have no desire to break, and their customers see they are true to their word. A lot of companies would go out of business rather than kowtow to government demands. The reason people want this kind of privacy, the reason people want this kind of security is because they don't trust the government in the first place, and they don't buy into the false notion that somehow the world is safer when you have less privacy. OK. I get your point. It's almost like electricity. People use electricity for good, they use it for bad. But in this case, if you know that there are people doing evil things and you have their device, what's wrong with not cooperating and figuring out how to get into it? Well, I agree. But first, I would like to say this is The Five at 5 o'clock and this is the 15th time in a row I've been asked the fifth question. OK, let me look at it this way. If you can water board terrorist, you can water board the people who run that company and find out. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. I understand what Eric is saying. There's got to be a way for them to set up a monitoring device in their own company to look at certain messages that may or may not, let's say they are in countries like England, which has been subjected to a lot of terrorist attacks, why not have something they can put together, that filters out those countries and then informs people like Scotland Yard. I don't understand it. [Crosstalk] You can subpoena actual texts and information. But what they're asking for is the back door. Kennedy points out the iPhone case where Apple said we are not going to give the FBI the back door into this iPhone, this terrorist's iPhone, because once you do that, you've ruined the product. Yeah. You have basically deemed our product unnecessary. Then it becomes like any other phone. So, look, terror may be your line in the sand. Stealing from the corner bodega might be someone else's line. That's why it's a very slippery slope. Until you violate -- you have to protect innocent people's privacy. The interesting thing is you need a free society in order to create and invent great products. If you have an X-essential terrorist group that wants to end your civilization, you will not have your freedom that allows you to make these devices. [Crosstalk] That's the thing. There are other ways of using intelligence to capture these people and figure out what they are doing aside from encrypted chat services, including you know a lot of sites that there are conservatives and liberals want to shut them down. They want to shutdown Twitter and even Pinterest. [Crosstalk] If a terrorist is hiding in a neighborhood, you don't know which house. The easiest thing to do is kick down every signal door in the neighborhood. You can't do that either because there are innocent people who don't deserve to have their door kicked down. [Crosstalk] That's why you can look at the phone of the other terrorist, he lives on 13 Elm Street. [Crosstalk] Got to go. I will do it. I will decide. I got the free time, Kennedy. I do it when I get home after The Five. All right, ahead, sanctuary city mayors fire back at the Trump administration, vowing to continue to find our nation's immigration, that's next. President Trump met with a group of law enforcement officials today at the White House and pledged to work alongside them to make America safe again. [Begin Video Clip] My highest duty as president is the security of our people, the security of our nation. That's why I've already taken numerous actions to enhance domestic security, including the creation of task force on reducing violent crime, an interagency task force to dismantle criminal cartels along with historic actions to secure our borders and remove criminals from our country. [End Video Clip] Removing illegals who have committed crime is a top priority for the president. And any local governments that won't turn them over to the feds will have their funding -- face their funding to be cut off. His attorney general issued another direct warning to sanctuary states and cities yesterday, but mayors like Chicago's Rahm Emanuel remain defiant. [Begin Video Clip] You're looking at a person who's a grandson of immigrants to the city of Chicago 100 years ago, in 1917. My grandfather came to Chicago, 13 years old, because it was a welcoming city. And we're still going to be and always will be a welcoming city, whether you're an immigrant from Poland or Pakistan, Ireland or India or Mexico or Moldovia, where my grandfather came. If you believe in the American dream, we welcome you to the city of Chicago. [End Video Clip] OK, Bobby, do you want to go first on this one? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The -- first of all, what Trump said about the task force, for the last 15 years, it's become a safer and safer country. That's one thing. He's got to go to history classes. I mean, it's unbelievable. And secondly, what we need -- what we need is not to have his attorney general say yesterday, We're going to cut off funding, federal funding for law enforcement. Exactly the kind of people you need to take care of the people who are criminals, who are illegals. Now, I happen to be for doing all that. I am not for ripping a woman who has got cancer out of a hospital, even if she wasn't that sick, and then her kids waiting for her back in New York. That is sick, and it's a thug. And you ought to be... OK, that... Can we put that to rest? That story -- we've been taking care of that woman for quite some time, and we're still taking care of her. Good. Twenty-four-hour, around-the-clock. Good. By the way, since I'm already yakking... Can I just point one more thing about Bob pointing out that, by the way, this started under President Obama, who wanted to earmark education funding for deportation. You said that yesterday, and I agree with you. Right? Bolling against sanctuary cities but in favor of a sanctuary app in the last block. What? Meaning a tweet . Greg, go ahead; I'm sorry. I love the disconnect. You have a mayor of a city where the primary aerobic exercise is ducking bullets. Announcing that it's a welcoming city, that's like the captain of the Titanic asking people in the lifeboats to come back in for a drink. This -- and also, the one argument that always comes up is that sanctuary cities are there to allow illegal aliens out of the shadows to report crimes. This is reiterated by everybody. I can't find the statistics. I looked. I haven't seen a statistic that says illegal aliens as a group are dependable sources of information for police. If somebody gives me that -- and I have a feeling Kennedy might. I don't know -- then I will say yes. But I haven't been able to find it. No, that... Can I just bring Dana in on Rahm Emanuel? I mean, is he the guy that should be pitching this idea? Well, what he said was that he's proud to stand with 34 other cities and states. And so there is a caucus, so to speak. So it's not -- it's not the biggest one. The government, the federal government uses funding as a carrot and stick approach. Right? So taking away the law enforcement would be the severe stick, whereas education funding might not have quite done it for them. What I don't understand -- and I just maybe need more education about this -- is that Rahm Emanuel went on to say that the administration's plan to deny federal funds to cities that are standing up for their values is unconstitutional. That part I don't understand, how it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be able to decide. Well, all this is going to be in courts. They're never going to... What is the constitutional harm? I don't know, but it's going to be in the courts. Yes, and what is the -- what is the obligation of the federal government to be funding cities in the first place? I agree with you that I don't think that we should be withholding funding from law enforcement, particularly if the argument is that crime is going up. I don't think you can necessarily say it's only because of illegal immigrant criminal activity. But I will say, to your point, that oftentimes immigrants are a very valuable source of intelligence for law enforcement. The And when you go into communities, especially local cops, they have to be able to talk to people and get information. My brother was a cop for a long time. And we talked about this. Adding an extra layer... Anecdotal evidence, Kennedy. I'm disappointed in you. No, it's not... I'll allow it. But here's what I will say. Oftentimes, we -- when we're talking about the war on terror, there's not enough human intelligence. That's something they could learn from local police departments, who really go out, canvass these communities and find criminals. The FBI has reported 15 years straight decline in violent crime. Yes. I have one last... Overall. ... final quick point, which is that one of the best things about being in power at the White House is that you have the power to convene. And so the president has been having all these meanings. And tomorrow his secretary of Department of Homeland Security, General Kelly, is going to meet with a group of mayors. And I wish I could be there, because it's quite a diverse group. It's not everybody from sanctuary cities. It's a real mix. And they're going to be talking about the executive order on immigration and sanctuary cities. So the power to convene, at least to get people talking, is one of the best things they could do. All right. We've got to go. President Trump fulfilling another campaign promise today, this time undoing President Obama's climate change agenda. Details coming up. All right. This afternoon, President Trump signed a new executive order, this one rolling back his predecessor's efforts to combat climate change. The order dismantles a number of Obama-era environmental regulations, ones he says have hurt oil drillers and coal miners. [Begin Video Clip] The action I'm taking today will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom, and allow our companies and our workers to thrive. The miners told me about the attacks on their jobs and their livelihoods. I made them this promise: We will put our miners back to work. With today's executive action, I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations. [End Video Clip] These regulations, they are job killers, but I'm not a Bob killer. I want to know exactly how you feel about the president's promise. West Virginia coal miners, coal miners in Pennsylvania, and other areas of the country, they are eagerly awaiting this great news that their jobs will be returned. Have you ever seen them take off the top of a mountain to get at the coal and send it all down into where the creeks are, and it all backs up and people lose their houses? Probably not. You're talking about mountaintop mining. It's very rare. Let me do it this way. The one thing about climate change, most, even the amateurs he listens to, will agree that the sea levels are rising. The first place I hope drowns is Mar-a-Lago and all of his billionaire friends. The idea that you would send this thing back. Yes, there's some things that are overreach. I agree with that. But for the most part, they are not. We've worked hard to have this. Every year the Republicans want to do away with clean water and clean air acts. They don't get away with it. And the reason for it is, they usually live in nice places and better houses and have never been around a poor person who lives in a place where they could... Yes. Name me one. Name me one. What are you talking about? Chuck Schumer is yelling at people at the most expensive Italian restaurant in the city. Name me a Republican around Trump that worked, lived in a poor... Climate change is about cost versus reward. I see. Are you willing to spend $1 trillion a year over a century to reduce the temperature by a fraction of a degree? Yes. Yes. A fraction that might actually be beneficial to the people you don't know in other countries. By the way, a slightly warmer climate, Bob, is beneficial then a slightly colder climate. You will save hundreds of thousands of lives a year with a slightly warmer climate. Who is the quack you -- who is the quack you used to listen to, used to have on here all the time? The loudmouth who never went to college? The climate change guy. What are you talking about? He wrote a book. Anyway. That was really, really remarkably intelligent. You're not talking about Al Gore, who promised that New York City would be underwater by 2015 from -- due to climate change and the rising sea levels? No, I'm not talking about him. He did go to college. That's right. He made a billion dollars off of it. Let's talk about some of the president's promises. He said that we're going to have fewer regulations and a cleaner environment. Is it possible, Eric, to have both? Yes. Sorry. Yes, I think -- listen, here's what -- Bob is eliminating the other part of the equation, where, when you do eliminate some of these regulations and restrictions, you open up the oil industry, which happens to provide millions of decent to high-paying jobs for people who need jobs right now. That's what this is all about. It's keeping the cost of energy down, but it's also one of the most employed industries. But Bob's got a job in TV. He doesn't care about them. [Crosstalk] You make fun of me; it's hard to believe. I happen to think the oil industry does a very good job and moves a lot of product every day, and nothing goes wrong. I'm not against the oil industry. I guess my question is why would you want to kneecap an industry that can still continue to make money? Because we have not made the shift to renewable resources. We are still using fossil fuels. The previous administration tried to shut that down and eliminate that stream of revenue. And when you do that, you stifle innovation. So you don't have the capital to invest... Spend, yes. ... in renewable energy. Right, so this goes around and around, and it's been going this way since about 1992. When President Trump came into office, he said, Every policy I think about, I'm going to think about jobs first. So how does this affect jobs? I thought it was very bold for him to go to the EPA today to sign this. Because most people that work at the EPA, they believed in this so much. But here's the catch. This Clean Power Plan that President Obama put in place, it's actually not in place. Guess why? Because the Supreme Court in February of 2016 said this is a huge overreach by the EPA. So it's been in court, and it's not even in place. But the other thing he announced today, which I think will be beneficial, is that back in the Obama administration, they did this thing called a guidance, basically, that said every project that goes through the government has to have some sort of a carbon check to see. So that goes away. It doesn't mean that you can't have a clean environment if you also add more market principles. You can do that. And it also doesn't mean that you can't continue to have international dialogue. All that stuff can continue. He went to... More innovation, more technology. He went to the EPA today for one very real reason. He's going to tear it apart. It won't be there next year. One signature down. He put a guy in there who's an anti-EPA guy, who's ripping it apart left by left. And maybe they'll be -- left by right. And maybe there'll be a brick left that we can all hand around. That is... To answer your original question to me... Yes. ... the way you do it is you do it, free market forces. You provide tax incentive for companies to use cleaner and more efficient ways of bringing up... Is that what they do at Standard Oil? ... oil, getting it out of the ground and also transport it. Nuclear. Time for nuclear. The typical -- the typical answer is going to be robotic. Teslas for everyone. Clean, cheap and awesome. All right. Wow. Great description. All right. Coming up, have you been feeling a little lonely lately? Maybe a little blue? Well, there could be a quick cure. Dr. Beckel reveals one remedy, and it is hot, hot, hot. Grab the oven mitts. That's next. Social media sites like Facebook and Instagram or Snapchat are designed to bring people together. But according to a recent study, they're making a lot of us losers -- users look like we're feeling isolated and depressed. So if you're one feeling lonely, you might want to cut down on those things. All my colleagues out here have theirs out every break. But I want to find out, then, Eric, are you feeling lonely or anything like that? When I actually go on Facebook and Twitter? No, I don't. I'm not sure what the study was all about, but I thought it was funny, your losers when you meant to say users. Users. I can't -- my eyes aren't good. I can't read that far. It doesn't make me feel lonely. I don't feel lonely, but I can see how it could make you feel more isolated. So, like, if you feel like you can get all the social interaction that you need right here on your phone, then why do you ever need to leave your couch? Good point. My son and his girlfriend text each other in the same room. That's the problem. That's common. They're talking behind your back. That's why. Yes, it's like, He's not going to bed. Anyway. When will he go to bed? Social interaction is our survival mechanism, like water. But you can drown in water. And I really do think we're cheapening it, social interaction by doing too much of it. It's like, when you were -- I was thinking about this, about this topic. When you are a teenager and you had a crush, you had, like, one picture of that person. Do you remember? You used to have a picture of that person? And it was a really special picture. And she had clothes on, too. Yes. Clothes on. That's good, Bob. You treated it like a diamond. But now you have 1,000 pictures every day, and you lose value in it. There's too much of one thing. And you should have just one thing and study the wrinkles in the lips, study every part of it rather than have too many of one thing. Who were you dating? Florence Henderson? Yes, it was Angela Lansbury, as a matter of fact. That's right. You're the one with the... She was quite the spry play girl in my time. Bob. Yes? Hi! I actually think there is something to this study. Because Greg is absolutely right. Signaling and communicating, they are essential. Not only as human beings but as primates. If you look at other primates, that's what they do. They, like, make faces, and they pick nits. And that's what we're doing when we send each other emojis. But the thing that's isolating is when you look at other people's social media; and you realize what they're doing without you. Yes. And that's what is so hurtful and off-putting to people. And the ones who participated in the study were between the ages of 19 and 32. Which, you know in this day and age, those are all still adolescents. You know, primates are probably better than we are now, too. And I can say one thing -- One More Thing is up next. See, she didn't jump. Very calm. That's amazing. Was I supposed to? Are you on drugs? Not yet. You holding? No, because -- no. Not no more. A long time ago. We should've gone to break by now, I think. But Kimberly used to jump right out of her seat. Are we on the air? OK, We're out. We're out. Goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye. But come back. It's time now for One More Thing, and I'm going to go first. OK, 60 Minutes did a piece this weekend about a chess teacher named Jeff Bulington or Dr. B, as he's known. It's in a small community of Franklin County, Mississippi. So there was an anonymous benefactor who thought that Dr. B would be able to help mold more people, so he decided to start teaching chess. He thought about a dozen would come. But get this. Now there's hundreds of kids that come, and they are all able to play at a national level. He teaches the fifth and sixth graders how to play chess, and then he teaches them to win or lose very gracefully. Here's a clip. [Begin Video Clip] Can the best chess player in the world come from Franklin County? Maybe. Absolutely. Super possible. Do you feel like chess has made the community more hopeful? Certainly parts of it. I mean, this flower hasn't bloomed yet. It's just starting to. Right? There's -- there's a lot yet to come. [End Video Clip] It's amazing what one person can do. Greg. He seems to bring a lot of peace to those children. The children, Greg. The children. What about the children? All right. It's time for this. [Begin Video Clip] Greg's Corrections. [End Video Clip] Last Friday, this happened on The Five. [Begin Video Clip] What is your favorite kitchen utensil and why? It's an electric water kettle. Yes. You know, like a hot water kettle. Right, right, right. Saves a lot of time. Yes. Saves a lot of time. You push a button. Yes, you make tea and... You can make all sorts of things. ... clean the sink, things like that. [End Video Clip] The National Utensil Society contacted me immediately, actually over the weekend while I was at home, and said an electric kettle is not a utensil. It's an appliance. Oh! Please issue an immediate retraction before we take legal action. So I want to apologize immediately to the National Utensil Society for labeling a kettle. And I am mortified. You should be mortified. Sorry. I'm sorry, it was fast and loose with the words. Sorry. And I regret if I offended you. OK, a utensil. I've got to think about it. I don't cook very much. Put the U in utensil. All right, Bob, you're next. I want to just take a minute and think all the viewers of The Five. You've been loyal. You've been -- a lot of you. And we appreciate it very much. Yesterday there was a little girl who was standing outside the studio here with a sign that she had made, and in his good way, Eric Bolling went over and talked to her and got her to put the sign up. And the producers opened up the windows. And that's the kind of thing that I think brings people to The Five. Because it really is a family feeling, and Eric grabbed hold of it yesterday. And when I walked out, the little girl said it was the most important day of her life. Aww. Is that right? I heard Jasper was in the picture. Jasper was up top in the -- on the poster. They were from Florida. They were a really nice little family. They watch it. And she was, like, a 12-year-old girl that loves The Five. I love that. You're next. Bob, what was your original One More Thing? You stole it. I was going to congratulate her for going to Bosnia, wherever it was. Bosnia. Oh, Benin? Eric, you're next. OK. OK, so a bunch of economic numbers came through today. Stock market jumped 151 points on the basis of consumer confidence jumping to another 16-year high, and home prices up, 31-month high. But this is the -- this tax deal that Trump needs to put together is super, super important. He really has to get this thing done And one of the ways to pay for some of it or another way to stimulate the economy is a repatriation plan I've been working on since literally 2009. Bob. Two to $3 trillion sitting overseas bank accounts by corporations here in the U.S. If they brought that money back, it would cost them 35 percent. So they're not bringing it back. They've been taxed over there. They're keeping it there. Bring it back at zero, take a quarter of that money, put it into, invest it into your own company. Your own company. Corporate investments to match the stimulus plan. That would create about 500 to $750 billion in stimulus. And who was one of the first people in favor of this? I was. Bob, are still for it? I am, yes. I think it's a great idea. All right. Kennedy, take us home. All right, baby. I am competing in the Lava Land Triathlon. I'm leaving for Hawaii tomorrow. You're what? I'm going to be in Kona for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundation. Coma is right. No, in Kona, Hawaii. My mom is a lymphoma survivor, God bless her, and I am racing in her honor and raising money. You can go to my Twitter right now, @KennedyNation, and donate generously. Awesome. Very excited for the warm weather. Tough race. You were great. Send us a picture. All right. Set your DVR so you never miss an episode of The Five. That is it for us. Special -- very Special Report is up next.