tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News May 22, 2012 4:00am-5:00am EDT
sides. it's nauseating to the american public. enough is enough. stop attacking private equities. >> laura: prominent democrat saying attacks on mitt romney's business career are out of line. will this backlash over the bain charges hurt the president. >> i want to become misuniverse canada because i feel that with this title i have the power of inspiring others to fulfill their dreams. >> laura: the first transgender beauty queen takes center stage at a miss universe pageant. we got the results and they may surprise you. caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. >> laura: hi, everyone, i'm laura ingraham in for bill o'reilly tonight. thanks for watching us. let's get right to the top
story anarchy in chicago. protests continued today after all-out chaos over the weekend when thousands of occupy protesters flooded the streets protesting the nato summit there. nearly 50 people are under arrest and 4 police officers suffered injuries including one who was stabbed in the leg. [shouting] >> laura: this morning an occupy organizer dismissed the reports of violence. >> we're a nonviolent movement and, yes, we have anarchists that are part of the movement. an arckism has a long tradition fighting for the oppressed people of the world. i think it's wrong to quaker rise it as being violent.
the occupy movement is not about killing people. nato is the ones killing people. i think it's important that we realize there is a reason why the media is focusing on a few scuffles of the police instead of larger systems of economic violence and injustice. this system is indeed organized crime. we're all the victims. on a global level. >> at a post summit press conference today, the president brushed off the protests. >> i think with respect to the protesters, that's what i said that is part of nato defense is free speech and freedom of assembly. and, you know frankly to my chicago press. outside of chicago folks weren't all that stressed about the possibility of having some protesters here because that's what part of what america is about. >> joining us now on the phone from boston, which has seen its own share of occupy protest its is none other than bill o'reilly.
okay, bill, the president had an opportunity to address what happened yesterday, that one police officer stabbed in the leg and did not. >> bill: i'm up here doing some work for fox news big cable convention in boston. sorry i can't be on tonight. i have been following this very closely. the president should be answering the question: do you still support the occupy wall street movement because in the beginning he did. so now and we'll get to this in a moment when is he asked about the protesters he gives an answer that doesn't say one way or the other whether he approves of this kind of thing. now, for tomorrow, tuesday night's factor, laura, we are investigating where the money is coming from to fund. there is a group in washington allied with the sciu labor
union. institute for labor studdies. these two entities have taken space in washington and they seem to be running protests all over the united states why want to know who is behind them where the money is coming from. these people showed up in washington dressed in black. they all knew where to go. they all knew what to do. it was very well coordinated. and on a personal note, on friday, i went to see a play called jesus christ super star on broadway. i had three kids with me. when i left the theater i was confronted by an occupy wall street guy who was very obnoxious came within inches of my face. i told him there were children present. he didn't care. actually chased the car down the street. that wasn't an accident. somebody had seen me going in or in the theater had texted the occupy people to chase me down. this is what is happening across the country, i think
people should know about it. >> laura: ironic you were at jesus christ super star. >> what the guy wanted to do same thing what happened to washington to me. he wanted me to punch him. he wanted me to attack him. it was obvious what he was doing. the driver of the car i was in -- this guy was out of control. this is ♪ just about me. this is very coordinated and they are terrorists. trouble that's what terrorists do. they are not on the par of al qaeda but they are trying to create trouble, manufacture and contrive trouble. imagine if this were some type of tea party protest. >> bill: it would be ridiculous. >> laura: cop ended up being stabbed in the leg. and we had a group called black block which is screaming dead cops.
we're going to find out where the money can is coming from. organized. dangerous and what president obama thinks about it what i noticed today in press conference, lauer -- laura that he no longer answers any questions. what he does is -- there was a question today what about if the taliban ce back in afghanistan after nato leaves what is the snran he didn't answer the question at all. all he does is reiterate the problem of the situation in six or seven minutes that's how long he takes. then he goes on to the next question. he never answers the question. here is my question, laura, what do you, mr. obama, think of the occupy movement? do you support it as you did in the beginning? yes or no? that's what i want to know for the life of belief i don't
understand why any of these supporters who were in chicago knowing what happened outside the boeing offices where employees couldn't even go to work today. they have families to feed they couldn't go to work today. occupy movement what t is is getting more and more organized. now in the hands of very powerful people. money is coming. in they use high tech twitter, and all of this stuff to coordinate among their leadership. get everybody out dressed in black with face masks. all right. and the media sits by and doesn't do anything about it well, we are going to change that tomorrow. >> laura: all right. i can't wait to watch. thanks so much. good luck up there. >> bill: okay. laura, thank you. >> laura: up next. juan and mary katharine react to the chaos in chicago. what president obama should do or say about it.
is it time for president obama to denounce these people? with us now juan williams and mary katharine ham, both, of course, fox news analysts. all right, so juan at this press conference today, the president wasn't asked specifically about the violent acts, but he was asked about the protests. well, chicago, you know, it does -- nothing phases chicago it was kind of a glib response. we're announcing where employees can go into buildings and police get stabbed in the leg? i mean, come on. >> obviously if you have people who are advocates of violence who are anarchists and threatening people, intimidating people so you can't do business, that's not good. you don't want it. >> laura: why doesn't the president say anything. >> no, no. what bill said earlier and what you are asking me is why doesn't the president denounce occupy wall street? i don't know that these two are synonymous. i think there are lots of elements and people who are involved in occupy wall street involved here. occupy wall street, i think, was really an expression of american discontent over the fact that they are, you know, wall street gets away with murder. you know, people on the right didn't like tarp and the big
bailouts for the wall street folks. wall street folks too big to fail. >> laura: long way from tarp debate. >> i think, in fact, there is a lot in common between the kind of anger we see between tea party -- these folks in chicago are not occupy wall street. i think they are anarchists and they should be condemned and the president should condemn them. >> laura: mary katharine, what do you make of this? this movement is kind of scattered. really nativitiy, kind of blackhawk block group and there is occupy people and then there are immigration activists having some rally in crete illinois, today with 800 bed detention facility being debated. seems like they're all over the place on what their goals are. >> yeah, but i think it's fair to say if occupy wall street and the anarchists are not together they are at least kissing cousins. these are people of the left. these movements when you protest the who, all these kind of things, all these world bank protests are people of the left. the fact is that the rules are different in public for reporters and the president if
this had been a right wing protest. >> every single tiny infraction, i'm talking about riding with chalk on a trash can he would have been asked about that. denounce horrible tea partiers, rules are different from the left. they are allowed to be violent. go into civil disobedience. publicly not allowed to do. reporters will not have it. >> mary katharine, how you can say they are allowed it to do it? didn't you say the police out there battling putting themselves on the line? >> juan, i'm talking about public perception. i'm talking about public perception and public perception, the media does not hammer them for it. yes, the media does not hammer them for it they do not have to pay the same price. democratic politicians do not have to spend all their time denouncing those same people. if it happened on the right. everything republic in the country everybody conservative including me would be asked to denounce every single type of violence. >> even the president went out of his way to say that the
chicago police did a splendid job. >> laura: hard-hitting. >> given the amount of scrutiny they are under. advise to you take a little bit of history lesson here. go back to 1968 and the behavior of the chicago police when they were literally beating hildz for people practicing free speech. hey, we do value free speech and we do value the right to protests. >> laura: let's move on with what happened with the naacp because we have two topics we have to hit. over the weekend the naacp says, juan, look, we're backing the president on gay marriage because it's a civil right. civil marriage should be extended to all. is this kind of a come-to-jesus moment for the naacp because certainly a lot of rank and filers, black voters are not with them on some of these critical social issues. >> i think the churches clearly are not with him on this. the ministers are not with him. although some ministers are on the board of the naacp. you noticed it wasn't a unanimous vote, laura. i think it's the ministers who still have reluctance. i think the naacp is trying to
to be relevant. >> laura: i would would think they this would make them irrelevant. if they are going against the views of 62% of black americans, why is this a winner for them. >> gets them back into the conversation. we are talking about them here tonight. brings them back into a major conversation in terms of the fact that i think most black americans are still going to support president obama and i think it helps president obama. it helps the naacp. for them it helps the naacp. >> laura: mary katharine, are you surprised by this given where we know the black sentiment is on gay marriage? >> first of all i have read headlines from last week and can i compare the two and actually make distinctions. moving on to the naacp. i do think they are in danger of being a little bit of out of step with rank and file. national organizations unions and naacp alike are often liable to do that they know where their bread and butter is they don't want to be on the wrong side of obama and democratic party. most black also end up voting for the president. most will continue to support the naacp. the problem you get is when
they start spending money on the pro-gay marriage movement that i think some black voters might get pretty upset about that they have to be very delegate about. this the fact is that there is is a large voting block of democrats who are anti-gay marriage and the left has to deal with that. >> laura: i interviewed michael steele on my radio show this morning about the views of black voters on the issue of abortion and abortion in the democratic party. this is what he said. let's listen. >> i have yet to understand how when you look at something like the naacp siding up with an organization with planned parenthood that has as part of its history and charter and existence, you know, the use of abortion to eliminate and limit the number of african-american and other minorities in this country, to me, it's just beyond the pale. >> i think michael steele here is clearly taking a conservative pro-life stance. i don't think it's the anything objectionable to it i don't think is he going to sell that message
overwhelmingly as a reason not to support. >> laura: margaret singer wanted to control the population of black americans. do you know that. >> i don't think that's true. that's not historically a fact. she wanted to make sure. >> population control, juan. >> that her movement extended its hand into the black community. that's different than what you are saying. >> laura: it's a dark vision. mary katharine and juan, thank you very much. directly ahead, shooting inside the tent. obama campaign surrogate. strategy of attacking mitt romney's business back ground? will that hurt the president? we h
people in an effort to build his own bank account. in an embarrassment though for the campaign, one of the president's biggest supporters brutally criticized the ad yesterday. >> i have to say from a very personal level, i'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. to me we are get to a ridiculous point of america. if you look at the totality of bain capital's record they have done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses and this, to me, i'm very uncomfortable with. >> laura: then hours after saying that mayor booker tried to soften the remark. >> i used the word nauseating on "meet the press," because that's really how i feel. romney has made his business record a centerpiece of his campaign. he has talked about himself as a job creator. and, therefore, it is reasonable and, in fact, i encourage it for the obama campaign to examine that record and to discuss it. i have no problem with that. >> laura: gee, do you think
someone might have gotten to him? well, the president was asked about the attacks on private equity today. >> >> when you're president, as owe opposed to a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. >> laura: joining us from new york is ed rollins, a fox news contributor and also from. john blink co-a democratic consultant. this made some buzz overnight and of course at the press conference today. ed, i want to start with you. i'm having a little trouble following this argument. romney might have been good at maximizing investor profit at bain but because he was good at that, we should still kind of distrust what he will do in running the economy. is that a strong argument? >> no, it's an absurd argue: obviously the president's commence there his job is to
look out for all the people. look out for all the people is how you carefully spend their money and set priorities for this country which he has not done. mr. romney had a tremendous career. he had a 20-year career. he created jobs. bain capital stronger company. he started it by the time he finished it still going on and did some wonderful things. he it h. a great career as governor and other things. all of that going to be fair game this president with not run on his record. he can't put up the slogan leadership that's working. he has to make this premise you think i'm bad look at the other guys. that's not going to work. >> laura: john, let go to you on this. a lot of the democrats out there who have been involved in this debate, at one time or another either had a fundraiser with someone who was in private equity, met somebody in private equity, got to be friends with them. and private equity is connected, right, to both political parties. the president himself, of course, schwartzman of the black stone group, been a big
fundraiser for this president. how does this argument really hold very long? >> well, i mean private equity is fine if your goal is to maximize wealth. i mean, that's -- it is one way of doing that made a lot of people wealthier at the expense of other jobs. i have no doubt he would do that for america as well as president. >> the bottom line is that in order to get people to invest money, whether it's john's money or my money or your money, you basically have to get a minimal profit back. that's what this country is about. that's what capitalism is about. this whole administration needs to take econ 101 class. they are very good playing robin hood politics take from the rich and giving to the poor the president talks about that all the time. that's not going to create jobs and make this country strong again. >> laura: john, hold on a second. i tweeted about this earlier today. if the president had been in private equity, i think you could argue that we might know how he would have done in
private equity and i would say probably not as well as romney because he did his own version of private equity with the taxpayer's money on solyndra, life squared, other solar projects that haven't really panned out. don't we want to maximize the return for the taxpayers and has he done a good job for as president. >> he has done a great job. the last month of the bush administration we lost $781,000 now we are gaining jobs not as quickly as weed would have liked. we'll could have had a second great depression. how he did in private equity. that's one question. how did he for the country as a whole we are a heck of a lot better had bush's tenure continued. >> laura: ed, clearly they rolled back somewhat cory booker's nauseating commented. although he doesn't disavow it in that longer four-minute video. he certainly tried to soften his position yesterday. the democrat very effective surrogate for this president. does that kind of take away the sting of the nauseated
remarks sunday or does that linger. >> no. first of all you have two very smart guys. he and former senator ford who both come out and basically said you need private equity. private equity is pension funds, unions invest in them. all sorts of things occur. if you want to get america working again you need capital. the way you get capital is have good investments and make profits. minimal profits or real profits depending where you want to invest your money that's how you create jobs. we can't live in this environment where everything is going to be more government jobs more government jobs and more government jobs. if you look at this president's record that's what he has done. raise taxes to pay for it he has continued to run up record deficits. to a certain extent when you look across this country a lot of people hurting and a lot of people without much hope. >> laura: john, do you think the metric of are you better off than you were three and a half years ago, do you think that's a valid metric. >> i think it's a fine metric. remember where we were three and a half years ago. we were going off a cliff. 741,000 jobs lost the last month. if that trend had continued
from the bush's last month we would have 27% unemployment right now. that's fright thing. we could have had a second grade depression. but could it be worse? heck yeah. >> laura: when people respond to that question now and they pretty much overwhelmingly say the country is going in the wrong direction, are they just wrong? they don't understand how much better things have gotten because i think they are looking at their paychecks. they are looking at future debt levels on their children, debt burden on their children and they're worried. i don't think this is a political issue really. i know it's a political year. people are really freaking out about how we're going to be able to pay off this debt in the future. and that's a metric that i think that the president himself set for himself. you know, unemployment isn't lower, i shouldn't be reelected if we haven't been able to tackle these big problems, i shouldn't be reelected. and, yet, we want to change the goal posts now because that's now not really resounding to the president's benefit. >> i think there is no doubt about it people are hureghtd. unemployment is still too
high. there is no doubt. things should be a lot better. buff you know when it comes to the deficit and the debt, remember, mitt romney's plan increases the debt and barack obama's start to reduce it as a percentage of g.d.p. over time. let also remember that under president clinton we had record surpluses under president bush we doubled the national debt and went to record deficits. so, look, i'm not saying there is not enough blame to go around but things compared to where they were or where they could be are a heck of a lot better. are people happy? should they be happy? no we have a long way to governmental the premise of this campaign he says worse were worse and they are better. i say things are worse and they are -- could have been much better new a different economic plan. >> laura: thanks so much. >> thank you. >> laura: plenty more ahead as the factor moves along this evening. will the north carolina jury send john edwards to prison? we will bring you the very latest on that case. a decision could be near. a transgender beauty queen competes in miss universe pageant did. she take the crown home? the results may surprise you. we hope you stay
>> laura: ed in the factor flashback segment tonight, new book by jose rodriguez enhanced interrogation unit says washing suspected terrorist abu would you have bathed bade da in the summer of 2002 led to valuable information that saved lives. an fbi agent initially involved with interrogating sued by da says that rodriguez is dead wrong. bill o'reilly recently talked to both member. >> you know who ali would you have -- zufan is. >> i sure do. >> he says when the interrogation team headed by you used enhanced interrogation techniques he stopped cooperating. >> ali soufan was not there. >> bill: let's walk through it
soufan says the fbi got the information true or false. >> the one thing he got was that khalid shake mohammed was muktar the name he had used. >> bill: don't get ahead of yourself there. who interrogated would you have bait da first. you or the fbi? who went in first to ask him fbi or cia. >> it was a joint effort. we went in together: soufan says he got information to from would you have bade da that led to information about khalid sheikh mohammed without the rough stuff it? >> did not lead to khalid sheikh mohammed. >> bill: once you started the rough stuff sue would you have
bade da would you zubaydah. did he just shut down. >> we not waterboard him until august of that year. >> did the fbi get high information about without the rh stuff the fbi and you. >> the only thing the fbi will give him credit for him to get the nickname of muktar and that was it. >> >> bill: so you contend that alisoufan is not telling the truth here. >> he doesn't know because he was not there when we started to do the enhanced interrogation techniques. he doesn't know what we got. we got thousands of intelligence reports that basically allowed us to take down and destroy the al qaeda organization attacked us on 9/11. he doesn't know. >> bill: is there bad blood between the fbi and the cia on the terror front? >> no, there is not. actually the relationships are very good and having improved with time.
>> bill: this guy is just a rogue guy this soufan and just causing trouble. >> is he a difficult guy. he had difficulty before he even got to the black side. he had difficulty during the millennium plot in jordan. he was thrown out there. he had difficulty after he left us and went to guantanamo after he left. >> mr. rodriguez is totally wrong here. as fbi agents we are trained to deal with facts. ksm defied by us in early april of 2002. before even the outside contract torres hired by mr. rodriguez showed to the site. so these are the facts. >> bill: so he says though that you weren't on the site. you didn't know what the cia got out of zubaydah or bin al shibh and ultimately khalid sheikh mohammed you weren't on site. >> i was on site at the beginning. the fbi pulled out from the site. >> bill: where was the site. >> i cannot tell you that.
>> bill: you were there in the beginning and who was present? what terrorist was present. >> zubaydah. >> bill: zubaydah was present and you were there in the beginning and the fbi and the cia were there together. >> yes. >> bill: at that point you weren't roughing him up. you were interrogating us a would anywhere. can you tell me whether it was overseas it? >> was overseas. >> bill: that's what i thought. then they build you out and rodriguez and his guys went in. >> right. >> and they waterboarded sue zubaydah. they say the information they got led to khalid sheikh mohammed. >> that's factually not to the truth here. >> bill: how do you know that. >> i'm still working with prosecutions guantanamo bay. i know the information we got after. another point, everything that they told us about the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques thus far i was there when we get this information, number one, number two, that has been discredited what mr. rodriguez is saying.
>> bill: not to me though. that's the important thing for you tonight. here is my problem i don't want to take sides on this because i wasn't there. >> sure. >> bill: you should know that i do agree with enhanced interrogation. >> i know. >> bill: at some point. all right. you weren't there when zubaydah was being waterboarded that's a being fanchts right. >> bill: rodriguez said it did lead to valuable intelligence that saved lives i don't think if i was you i would call him a liar if you wasn't there. >> i was there. what they were giving us as examples they got. they said they got ksm. i know they didn't get ksm. they said they got padilla the dirty bomber. i know they didn't get padilla the dirty bomber. more importantly the cia own investigation of the program revealed that not one single imminent threat was stopped because of enhanced interrogation techniques. so the department of justice investigation. so the department of defense
investigation. unfortunately, for mr. rodriguez, today, we have volumes of documents that has been declassified by the government. that tell us the truth about what happened. >> bill: you say all the waterboarding and all of that came to not? >> i believe there is a big difference between having compliance and cooperation. our technique, the traditional technique used by cia and by the fbi and by dod -- >> bill: bottom line is you say we don't need waterboarding. >> i don't think we need waterboarding to save lives. i was there. i testified under oath. my statement is still the only statement under oath about the facts of what happened on that site. >> laura: after bill's interview with soufan rodriguez offered this retort writing quote: if you want to argue that the information gained from these terrorists was not worth the black eye that the united states got when the interrogation techniques leaked and were mischaracterized in the media, be my guest. but if you want to argue that
no critical information was gained from them, save your breath because you're wrong, unquote. and in a moment, the jury in the john edwards case wrapped up day two of deliberations. are all sides pointing to a conviction? we're going to debated it coming up. if you have copd like i do, you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd iludes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiva helps corol my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell yr doctor if you have kidy problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you ta, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if yr breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain,
>> >> i'm laura ingraham in the follow up factor segment tonight, day two of jury deliberations in the john edwards trial wrapped up today with no verdict. but, jurors did ask to see very specific evidence for extra consideration. so does the jury's action today signal they are leaning one way or another? joining us now from new york is jennifer bon john, a criminal defense attorney and from los angeles richard gabriel a jury consultant. let's try to unpack. this jennifer, let's start with you, sure.
>> laura: what's the relevance of the jury asking for these eight exhibits to look at and point out the specific pieces of evidence that might tip this case one way or another? >> yes. it seems to me that the jury is looking at what i would call the bunny mellon state of mind evidence. they are looking for hand-written letters from bunny mellon. they are looking to find out what she intended this money to be. they are looking at they wanted to see her estate lawyer's testimony. and the judge has already instructed them that bunny mellon's state of mind, her intint -- intent is actually relevant in their determination whether this is a campaign or campaign donation. this is one contested element that the government has of course said this is campaign contributions and, of course, the defense has said all along no, this was personal. this was bunny mellon, she was interested in john edwards as fern. she wasn't as a person.
she wasn't interested in exercising influence over the campaign. that's where i believe the jury's head is on those exhibits. >> laura: richard, let's go to you. she was obviously very very wealthy benefactor of john edwards. how does her state of mind, i think a lot of people are confused about this. how does her state of mind about the money she gave to edwards relevant in this case? >> well, i think to a certain extent with the jurors distinction without a difference. let's face it. a lot of the jurors and public feels if it's going to someone personally a politician views some of these campaign contributions for personal things. they use them for things. that's a legal distinction. and i think what's interesting about this is is to find out jurors, for the most part, they want to look at really -- they take a look at what their own moral conviction was in this case. they will sometimes use the evidence to support it. if they feel there this is no big deal. this is sort of a personal thing, fund she has a
long-term relationship with john edwards. they may be leaning more towards acquitting. if they think, look, this guy is running for president, is he kind of -- is he breaking the rules here. and this is just morally wrong. they could be leaning toward conviction. >> laura: let's talk about the 14 days here. both of can you chime in on this. 14 days of testimony. no one testified. >> exactly. >> laura: correct me if i am wrong, that there was direct knowledge on the part of john edwards that what he was doing was violating campaign finance laws. richard, you can speak to that >> well, right. i think that's where the defense has actually made a very good case. they have done an excellent job in cross-examination on the witnesses. showing that he really had no specific knowledge of it but, again, i come back to, jurors say well, does he know in general that these are all sort of -- it's all sort of a big fund that goes to the campaign and its for personal use, too. i think that's why they are probably going into the bunny mellon letters. to look at what does she think
it's for and that will sort of direct them to what her state of mind might direct them to john edwards' state of mind. >> laura: jennifer, go ahead. you heard of the slush fund, this is a hush fund, right? this money was meant to keep all this quiet. put the spotlight on someone else, not john edwards potential paternity issue. and even if the jurors think is he a bad guy, and they don't like the fact that elizabeth edwards had breast cancer, that's not supposed to go into their understanding of this case. >> right. we hope our jurors follow the law. and that they can recognize the distinction between sins and crimes. and what's very interesting about this case and one piece of evidence that was so compelling from my perspective is that there was a memo from the federal election commission. this is the agency that is responsible for administering and enforcing the federal election campaign laws. and they determined that john edwards did not violate any
campaign laws. now, if we had 12 jurors come back and say oh no, no, no, yes, he did, what we are saying is that the agency responsible doesn't understand its own laws that 12 lay people are no better. at the end of the day they still show john edwards knew he was committing a crime and they didn't do it from my perspective. >> laura: in my perspective they didn't do it either. we will see. we appreciate it thanks so much. when we come back a transgendered beauty contestant who had been embroiled in controversy makes a strong bid to win ms. universe in canada. was she able to pull it off in? right back.
canada because she was not a naturally born female. that decision was reversed and over the weekend she was allowed to compete. talackova did not take home the crown overnight. she did win the title of miss congenialality. the factor recently debated whether she should have been allowed to compete in the first place. >> bill: here is the situation, this woman is free to do whatever she wants to do. she didn't violate any laws. she went from a guy to a girl, all right? but, miss universe says because you weren't born a woman, you can't compete as a woman. does that violate her rights? >> well, bill, i think it depends on what determines that you are a woman or not. is it that you are born a woman? is it your -- or gender. you are born a certain gender, male or female? is it your d.n.a.? is it your genitalia? i say that because, you know,
technically there are people that are am he. >> let's assume she is a woman. that's what it says she is a woman. that's what she is entering the contest in. does she have a right to compete? >> i believe that she does. the problem that i have here is that she lied. basically when they asked her were you born a woman she said yes and she wasn't. >> bill: she made that excuse in her mind she was always a woman. see, in my mind i was always a quarterback tore the new york jets. i don't know how much credence to put into that. what do you say, janine? >> well, i believe that the miss universe pageant is a private organization and they have a right to set the rules that they want to set. and it says that anyone who enters the contest has to be a naturally born woman. >> bill: does it say that
naturally born woman? >> yes. and -- yes. and, you know, the nfl has rules. the olympics have rules. and you have to stick by the rules. those are the rules. a private organization has a right to set the rules. >> bill: what right, janine, does miss universe pageant have to violate this lady's right to be a woman? they are basically saying because you weren't born a woman you don't have a right to be a woman. it's kind of complicated. but, you know, she did what she had to do to become a woman on her passport it says she is a woman. and then this operation, janine says well, we don't think you are. it doesn't sound right to me. >> well, that's what it says right now. if you want to enter those are the rules. she knew that going in. >> bill: if she sues. >> she knew that going in. >> bill: i agree with you. i think we all agree, even leslie that private concerns have a right to make their own rules. the boy scouts proved that. and they have ruled time and time again if you are a
private enterprise as the miss universe is not funded by the government you have the right to make the rules. if she sues on the basis that she, her human rights are being violated because that's where the lawsuit would go and, you know, that's going to be an interesting case, leslie. >> yeah, i do think she definitely has some, you know, ground to stand on there. because i do feel it's discriminatory. hey, look, certainly private organizations have a right. i mean, people who are fully able bodied should not be in the special olympics. bill, you should not be run ning for miss america. some people would vote for you if it were done by phone. if i had the body she has i would definitely think about entering into contests. she has, i believe, a right to fight that. >> bill: that's available in catalogs all over the place. she wasn't born that way. she bought all that. go ahead, janine, round it up for us. >> i have a thought about that i think that having a tran yeah gendered woman puts a
naturally born woman at a disadvantage in a pageant like this. women struggle with cell you light and extra fat and men have streamline legs and they are muscular and they can augment their breast and put the naturally born woman at disadvantage. >> bill: if these beauty contests if they really wanted to be beauty contests would say no enhancements. that's the way to do it. >> and pinheads and patriots on deck. starring the occupy movement and the very unhappy bride. watch out. we'll be back in just over two minutes. the capital one cash rewards card
gives you a 50% annual bonus. and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said, "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪