Transcript

Democrats threaten to hold FBI position hostage; Bin Laden's son threatens revenge against US

Reaction and analysis on 'The Fox News Specialists'

 

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," May 15, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling, along with Eboni K. Williams and Kat Timpf. We are The Fox News Specialists. Despite the left wing freak out, and when I say left-wing, I include politicians, pundits, anti-Trump GOP's, and left-leaning media. Anyway, despite their collective freak out, President Trump is forging ahead in the wake of the James Comey firing. But in recent days, the hysteria from the president's enemies is morphing into an all-out assault against the administration. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DNI, CNN: The developments of the past week very bothersome, very disturbing to me. I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN: The Republican Party is losing any resemblance to a traditional western political party. Instead, simply turning into something more commonly found in the developing world, a platform to support the ego, appetite, and interests of one man and his family.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, D-MD., MSNBC: This is a fight for the death, it's all about democracy. The question is going to become when all of this is over, what kind of country are we going to have?

CARL BERNSTEIN, JOURNALIST, CNN: I think this is a potentially more dangerous situation than Watergate, and we're in a very dangerous moment.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

BOLLING: Well, it's getting to the point of parity, and all of this absurdity ignores the one critical issue. What has President Trump done that a president isn't allowed to do legally? People like the renowned constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley, are taking the air out of the left's conspiracy balloon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, MSNBC: For weeks I question, really, the need for special council because, honestly, I still don't see the underlying crime here. When we talk about the Russian influence and collusion, there's not any evidence I've seen of collusion. With Watergate, the people have been talking about there was a serious crime that began, that led to the cover up. Here you seem to have a cover up without a crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: Eboni, that's one of the things we were talking about last week. The difference between the Watergate Scandal, the Watergate reality, it wasn't a conspiracy theory. There was a conspiracy and they were caught red-handed. We're still waiting for Donald Trump to have done something wrong, yet everyone is calling for a grand jury. Everyone is calling for special prosecutors.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO- HOST: Yeah. And we're going to get deep into it, obviously, throughout the hour, E. But you're right there's no evidence. You know, Pat Buchanan made that very important distinction. There was a crime, proven, no question. We're definitely not there yet. So it's interesting to see how much lead time this thing take and people let it unfold naturally.

BOLLING: Kat, one of the sound bites we played over the weekend on the Sunday show, I think it was CNN. James Clapper, you have to remember Clapper from that massive senate hearing where he lied to Senator Wyden about the NSA was spying on Americans.

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO- HOST: Yeah, absolutely. I don't trust Clapper at all. I do think the hysteria is pretty crazy. It's definitely overblown. But at the same time, I think it's normal to have question. The media should be asking questions. That's fine. But I feel like they should also be able to talk about something else sometime. But I'm not really seeing that, ever.

BOLLING: I think they have one thing on their mind.

TIMPF: Russia.

BOLLING: Russia. OK. Let's meet today's specialists. He's the chairman of the conservative political action committee, GOPAC. He's a veteran Republican strategist, he coached state leaders and candidates on how to win in elections, and he specializes in traveling to just about every corner of America. He's eaten a meal and stayed overnight in 48 states, David Avella is here. And she's a columnist for the Boston Herald. She's also a host for Boston Herald Radio where she's interviewed big newsmakers like President Donald Trump. She's also a model for Talbots for the past several years to raise money for the nonprofit Dress for Success, but she specializes in fishing, Adriana Cohen is here. Adriana, I want to start with you on this one. James Clapper not only lied in 2013, to the senate panel. In 2010 -- I don't know if you remember this, I distinctly remember watching this interview. James Clapper as the DNI at the time, as well, was being interviewed by Diane Sawyer, and she said, hey, what about these London bombers that were just caught? He had no idea that the London bombers were just caught three hours earlier. So here's a guy who are now -- we're interviewing him, the left wing media interviewing him as an expert, but the guy is number one uninformed, and number two has lied to us.

ADRIANA COHEN, BOSTON HERALD: That's right. He's lost the confidence of the American people, especially when you highlight that with the NSA. I mean, before congress, under oath he said, he denied knowing anything about intelligence surveillance of average civilians. And then we've found out through Snowden, that's not the case. The government is doing this massive metadata collection. So he's lost the American people's trust there. And even with Benghazi, he wasn't exactly forthcoming. And so, I don't know why these left-wing leaning media outlets continue to have him on, other than to disparage Donald Trump, which is what the left-wing media has been trying to do and has been doing, actually, quite successfully since he was inaugurated.

BOLLING: And David, he fits right into their narrative. Their narrative is we need a special prosecutor, special investigator, to go ahead and dig deeper into Donald Trump. Meanwhile, where's the crime?

DAVID AVELLA, GOPAC CHAIRMAN: There is no crime. This is why, Donald Trump, just a couple of nights ago in Judge Jeanine show said he may get rid of the weekly or the daily press briefings. Because every day, it's the media asking the same questions over and over. So what did you do about Russia? What'd you guys do to cooperate with them on the election, and then the next week. OK, last week you said you didn't do anything, and you probably didn't do anything, but what if you did do something? Should you be brought up on that? It's just the same question.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: You wouldn't really get rid of the press briefing, right?

AVELLA: There are plenty of ways.

TIMPF: Government by the people, for the people. You've got to have the press briefings. You've got to have the opportunity to ask those questions.

AVELLA: There are plenty of ways for the media to get to ask questions. Look, he just did an interview with Lester Holt last week. He did one with Judge Jeanine. He's done plenty here on Fox. You've got Facebook live. You've got plenty of social media outlets now. Look, people are going to hear from this president.

TIMPF: I wouldn't mind a Donald Trump Facebook live every night on this.

(LAUGHTER) BOLLING: I'm in favor of the press briefing as well. But, Eboni, Kat points out that everyone would like to see the press briefings continue. A lot of people would. But Krauthammer, one of the smartest guy in the room, anytime you're in the room with him, said on Friday, you know what, we got along without press briefings, televised press briefings a long time ago.

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

BOLLING: And his point was you can still brief the press. You just don't have to do it on TV every day.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. That's not the only format. And look, I'm actually not married to them. I think there are other ways to get this information out, as David points to -- and maybe more effective. I actually think a lot of these problems that the White House is seeing are their own creation, Eric. I think they've got a lot of competing narratives. I think they're -- inefficient messaging coming out of the White House. And maybe to President Trump's point, that can be eradicated, right. If there's a singular messaging going on, one that is more consistent with something the people can understand more plainly because right now I think that's part of the problem.

BOLLING: Can I just ask you this, there's so many good things going on in the Trump administration right now. The jobs market is firming up, wages are going up. Stock markets are going up. Home prices are going up, consumer confidence on 16 year highs. If the only thing the media wants to talk about -- every single hand in the press briefings is what about Russia?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Kat, that sounds familiar to me. That's like the same problem Hillary Clinton's campaign had during the election, and I faulted her campaign, and so I'm actually going to fault the White House the same time. Take that narrative back. Say, you know what, while everyone else is obsessed with a special prosecutor, what happened to James Comey, I'm talking about the deal I made in China. I'm talking about.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: You watch the press briefing thought, Kat. You watch Sean Spicer goes out and do 15 minutes on all these accomplishments, where the president is going next, how many things are going well, the successes he's having in China, and every single question, not one question ask him about that. It's all about the same stuff.

TIMPF: Absolutely. Which is why I think it could actually help him if he appoints a special prosecutor. That way, that all would go away.

BOLLING: Adriana, your thoughts?

COHEN: Well, you know, I think -- I'm not in favor right now of a special prosecutor because, look, we have the house doing an investigation, a senate doing an investigation, and the FBI. If we don't have -- if we don't respect these groups, then we should fix that serious problem. I think that's enough. Mitch McConnell and Speaker Ryan say this is enough. Let these three bodies do their job.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: We've got to go with Paul Ryan.

BOLLING: Guys, let me do this. Let's take a listen to this. I mean all of the hysteria from the Washington elite and media, President Trump getting some surprising support from an unexpected source. Robert Gates, the former defense secretary under President Obama and George W. Bush. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Broadly philosophically, I am in agreement with his disruptive approach. So in government, I'm a strong believer in the need for reform of government agencies and departments. I also think on the foreign policy side, that there is a need for disruption. Now the question is, obviously, in the implementation of disruption.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: I will bring it around. David, Gates is a straight shooter. He worked for not only President Obama, Democrat, he also worked for George W. Bush, an establish Republican as well, and he's saying he'd like this disruptive strategy.

AVELLA: That's why Donald Trump is president. Because you had people on the right who wanted disruption, just as you had Bernie Sanders voters who wanted disruption. So this desire for disruption is equal among those on the left and the right. Let me add one other thing, though, back to our last topic, which is it is so funny that now the media, and even situations like this, want to focus on an election that is 18 months away, saying, oh, his approval rating is 38 percent. That means Republicans are going to be destroyed in the next election. They didn't know 18 minutes before the election results what was going to happen. And now we have a media that wants to obsess over how Donald Trump is doing right now based off polling numbers that they're coming out with. And that's why Gates' comments are so credentialed building for President Trump. That he's doing the right thing. That he is the disruptor that Americans ultimately voted for.

WILLIAMS: Disruption I think is great. My mother voted for Donald Trump largely on that basis. She wanted to see a mix-up, a change, and she didn't feel that she'll get that for Secretary Clinton. But, also to Gates' point, the way goes about, right. That matters, too. And I'm not going to accuse the president of anything. We don't have any evidence of anything at this point. But there are those of us, E, that are looking to see what that looks like. And I want to talk about the approval rating, right now 29 percent approve of the way Comey was fired. You've got 38 percent that get approve. But, you know what, 32 percent are like me. We don't have enough information yet. And, you know, the ACLU coming out and asking for this information through the freedom of information act. I think that would actually do the White House a favor. That would (INAUDIBLE) Buchanan's point on the program last week. Take some of that cloud of suspicion perhaps away.

TIMPF: Some people are satisfied. Some people are sick of it. But some people are saying, hey, if you are as disruptive and you do things in a way that Donald Trump does, there's going to be questions, All right. Say why did you fire Comey? Wait so long and then do it all of a sudden, why he's in L.A.? The reason you didn't treat Hillary Clinton fair enough when you were smiling and nodding and people we're saying lock her up. I mean, people are going to have these questions, and if they're not satisfied, then we should get answers to these questions in order to move on. There's no legislative or executive way to make the minds of Americans stop thinking about something. And they're still thinking about that.

(CROSSTALK) BOLLING: I agree with you, Kat, but I would also point Adriana to that, amongst Donald Trump base support, he's still extremely popular.

TIMPF: Well, of course.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: No matter what.

BOLLING: It's what, May 15th of 2017. You have a good three years before -- I mean, OK, give it two years before you have to start really worrying about expanding the base. Right now, he's got to solidify his base, in my opinion.

COHEN: That's right. There's been polling done recently that said if we could have the election again right now, the majority of Trump supporters would be all in and vote for him, yet, again. But, you know, going back to just the rigged media, which is the left-wing media, has been totally unfair to this president. I mean, since day one, they have tried to delegitimize his presidency, and they have floated all this fake news about him, from, you know, palace intrigue stories that were never true, to the Russian dossier which was unsubstantiated. I mean, there's so much fake news out there, that I feel terribly sorry for this administration because they're really up against a hostile enemy.

WILLIAMS: But, Adriana, you can't feel that sorry -- maybe you do. But for me, I can't feel that sorry for him. Although, I agree with everything you just said, but President Trump has been the creator of that type of hostility and questioning of legitimacy for prior president, specifically, Barrack Obama. So when we talk about false facts around the president, they're never fair, they're never right, but I think in Donald J. Trump's case he's got to take it as well as he gave it.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: When Barack Obama was president, yeah, there were maybe a handful of media outlet organization who would dig in to -- President Obama, everything he said, everything he promised.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Fair enough. But he did walk that back. But here with Donald Trump it's like, look at the press room.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: They don't like him, that's true.

AVELLA: The fight that goes on between the president and the media will continue for now through the end of his administration, as it happens with most presidents. Eric, you have a business background, what's the best way to get customers? Give them what they want. Donald Trump gives people jobs and he keeps America safe. That's what voters want. And Republicans will have success in '18, and he will be reelected in 2020 if we deliver on those two things.

BOLLING: All right. It's a good place to leave it right there. Democrats prepare to take the position of FBI director hostage and play petty politics over the Russia investigation. The new outrageous threat, that's next. Plus, we'll be hearing a special music tribute throughout the show today. We've -- only two weeks on the air, but The Fox News Specialists family is already expanding, we've explain how those two come together later on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Democrats are now threatening to hold the position of FBI director hostage, refusing any confirmation vote on a nominee until a special prosecutor is named in the Russian investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN: Senator Mark Warner.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: Yes.

TAPPER: . he's the top Democrat in the intelligence committee. He wants the Democratic Party to refuse to vote on the nomination of a new FBI director until a special prosecutor is appointed. Do you support that move?

SCHUMER: Yeah. I think there are a lot of Democrats who feel that way. We'll have to discuss it as a caucus, but I would support that move because who the FBI director is, is related to who the special prosecutor is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: But if the FBI director position is so critical, as we've heard it now, since James Comey was fired, why are Democrats throwing a wrench into the process? I'm going to start with you, David. So personally, I'm not a fan of just flat out refusing to appoint these critically important positions. I didn't like not offering Judge Garland a confirmation vote either. But here's the question, are there instances where special prosecutor is important? We're going to talk about whether it's important in this case. But, if indeed, there is a conflict, would you agree a special prosecutor is important?

AVELLA: We've got a special prosecutor investigate Hillary Clinton, I mean, there are plenty of things. If we're going to start special prosecutors there's plenty of things that we could start prosecuting.

(CROSSTALK)

AVELLA: Here is what we're hearing here out of Chuck Schumer, partisan pouting. They have no other way to be effective. And so now they're going to say, oh, we want to hold up the votes for the next FBI director until we get this special prosecutor. But, you know what, Chuck Schumer, you can thank your friend Harry Reid for changing the rules. And so now, as long as there's 51 Republicans that hold together, Donald Trump will get his FBI director.

BOLLING: Knock yourselves out. And, you know, this disruptive Democrat strategy didn't work for them the last time when Harry Reid put in place the nuclear option, where you could go to a 51 simple majority vote in the senate to get someone confirm. I mean, here you go again, Harry Reid. The Harry Reid option, they should call it. Here it is again. It's going to come back. So what if he gets confirmed with 52 Republican votes? Too bad.

WILLIAMS: You live by it, you do have to die by it. To that point, Adriana, your take on this Dem strategy.

COHEN: You know, it's just going to blow up in their faces again in the midterm elections because Americans want our lawmakers to solve our serious problems, and all the Democrats have been doing since President Trump got inaugurated is resistance. They've been 100 percent obstructionist for everything he does, even his confirmation of Judge Gorsuch, which is an exceptional choice for Supreme Court. No matter what he does, they obstruct it. And I think it's going to backfire.

TIMPF: Everyone is so anti-obstruction, all the time. Sometimes obstruction is good. One of the best things about our government is that branches can obstruct the other branches. And I think we need to take some time and be grateful for the balance of power. I always like to see that being a possibility being at work. In this particular case, yeah, because of Harry Reid, it's not really going to work, not going to happen. But I still don't think it's going to go away because they won't let it go away, and because people have questions.

WILLIAMS: But Kat, let me ask you this question. You know, again, when you talk about the need for a special prosecutor, by definition, is when there's an exact conflict.

TIMPF: Right.

WILLIAMS: We have a clear evident conflict. We're not there yet. Even if you are suspicious on a high level around this, we're nowhere near having evidence of collusion. We're nowhere near evidence of a crime. Do you think the Dems would be better served to spend more time on making that case instead of just being this resist, resist, resist narrative coming out of Chuck Schumer?

TIMPF: Absolutely, absolutely. Because, obviously, there's nothing specific to charge him with right now, so it's the nice thing to say. And I just think that Trump should be more open (INAUDIBLE) OK, Yeah, if there's anything that happens then go ahead, and let's go for it. And being more open instead of -- and I understand if people were telling me that I was colluding with Russia all day long and I totally didn't do it, I would probably get irritated with it a lot also. But the best thing you can do to prove that you're innocent is to just say, yeah, whatever.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Why is a special prosecutor so bad?

BOLLING: Because this is what I've been saying for the two weeks we've been on this show. It's a witch hunt. There's no reason. There's no crime.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: There's not even an accusation of collusion. If you have something and you say, I found this thread and he can pull out further? Then, OK. Then maybe there's a case for that. All this is -- we've found nothing. The FBI found nothing. The CIA found nothing. The NSA found nothing. And you know what, even the DOJ investigation found nothing. The house panel found nothing. The senate panel found nothing. But let's get a special prosecutor just in case we find something. That is a waste of time, money and resources.

TIMPF: And the Dems will look so, so stupid if they do it and ends up being nothing.

AVELLA: This is obstruction, but so is majority rule. And let me remind you, we have the White House, the senate, the U.S. house, 68 of 99 state legislative chambers, 33.

TIMPF: Nothing will happen in this case.

AVELLA: So what does that mean?

(CROSSTALK)

AVELLA: The only thing Democrats have to do is scream and yell and obstruct and do everything they can to prevent Republican majority from going -- enacting legislation that can create jobs and keep Americans safe.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: The potential for obstruction is part of the reason why this country is free.

WILLIAMS: I will say this -- let me ask you this, David. So when you talk about a special prosecutor, sometimes some people feel it's uncomfortable to be asked to investigate your boss. Personally, I wouldn't know how comfortable I would be. So it's the DOJ -- and, look, the truth is, Adriana, you're right. If we don't have trust in these bodies of government, the department of justice, FBI, we have a bigger problem on our hands. And I submit that we do. So in that context, so maybe it's not about Donald Trump having done something so wrong, but just for the sake of preventing that type of dynamic is maybe a special prosecutor not so bad?

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: So every time you're not in power, you're going to call for a special prosecutor for whoever is in power for something you've heard or something you believe? All it is, it's trying to take down Donald Trump's character and successes.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: There are some suspicious things that I could understand. The timing of Comey's firing, that goes to that.

BOLLING: Come on, Kat.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: You really believe he fired Comey because he was mean to Hillary Clinton?

BOLLING: No, I think he fired Comey because he lost confidence.

TIMPF: I think he should have been fired, but the timing -- I understand.

WILLIAMS: Never had any confidence in James Comey.

TIMPF: I agree with that.

WILLIAMS: A disturbing new report sounds the alarm on -- possibly a resurgence of al-Qaeda, if the terror group looking to form an alliance with ISIS, more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIMPF: The terror threat potentially growing even more dangerous. A new report warns the kin of Usama Bin Laden is not actively recruiting for an al-Qaeda resurgence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "60 MINUTES"/CBS)

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now believe to be about 28-years-old. In January, he was classified by the U.S. as a specially designated global terrorists, the same label once given to his father.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: He's basically saying America and American people, we're coming. And you're going to feel it. And we're going to take revenge for what you did to my father. We're going to revenge what you did in Iraq. We're going to revenge what you did in Afghanistan.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: He still wants vengeance.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. The whole thing was about vengeance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: And this morning on Fox & Friends, Rob O'Neill, the former navy seal who killed Osama Bin Laden, sounded off on concerns that al-Qaeda and ISIS could be working to form an alliance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB O'NEIL, FORMER NAVY SEAL: They are rivals but they're looking -- there are secret talks going on right now with couriers trying to talk to each other to see who's who. ISIS is starting to get squeezed now in Raqqa. They're losing Mosul. They're going to either need to get back in the dessert, hide out there or wherever they could get -- there's a better safe haven for them in Pakistan which is where al-Qaeda is, pretty much. They're in 20 countries right now, but a lot of them are in Syria, a lot of them in Pakistan. It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall. It's going to fall off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: By the way, we'll have Rob O'Neill on The Fox News Specialists in a week, and we'll talk to him further about this. What do you think, Eric? It's almost as if having Osama Bin Laden for a father makes you a little bit of a messed up kid.

BOLLING: You're legacy. But here's -- and this is where I kind of get in a lot of heat with fellow conservatives. I don't think we should be fighting all these wars.

TIMPF: I agree with you.

BOLLING: I'm not in favor of all these things. Right, we agree on this, because here's what happens. It goes from the Taliban to al Qaeda. Then all of a sudden, this shiny thing over here is ISIS, and everyone runs over there. They're paid to fight, as Rob O'Neill points out. We start pushing them back in Iraq or their headquarters. We start pushing them back out of Mosul, and then they're going to go on to the next ISIS or...

TIMPF: I think nailing JELL-O to the wall is the perfect way of describing it.

BOLLING: ... terror groups. The point is, you really have to pick the fight you want to fight, not spread yourselves across, you know, four or five or six battlefield.

WILLIAMS: And isn't that the problem, though, Eric? Is that they don't exist in isolation. And, you know, unfortunately, we have to go back to, you know, invading these areas, which whether you think it was a mistake or not -- personally, obviously, I do. I think we all agree it should have never happened. But it did happen. Right?

So ultimately, our men and women, you know, our armed forces are over there. They're responsible now. Their lives are at stake. And I just want something that's going to make sense for them at this point. And so I'm really concerned about pulling out.

TIMPF: Do you agree or with this, or do you want to go out, get in there and go after the son?

COHEN: You know what? I think -- I understand your point, Eric. We don't want to be spread too thin, but on the other hand, radical Islamic terrorism is the driving force behind the refugee crisis. And so if we sit back and we don't address, let's say, Boko Haram, who pledged allegiance to ISIS several years ago, then we're not going to fix their refugee crisis.

Boko Haram alone has displaced over two million Nigerians. And then look at all the millions of refugees coming out of Iraq and Syria. We have to address it, for their own safety, innocent civilian safety.

But then also, we're going to keep having this horrific refugee crisis on our hands.

And so collectively, the United States and NATO needs to come together and really destroy all forms of radical Islamic terrorism and all the splinter groups. Not just ISIS but Al Shabaab, Al Nusra. The list is long.

TIMPF: But people will be on our side and they're not on our side. Everything flips around. Our enemies are fighting our other enemies. I mean, David, it's not really that simple, is it?

AVELLA: It's why we need our border to be secure, so we know who's coming in, so we know what they're bringing into this country. And it's why what the Democrats are doing with the FBI director and their language is so dangerous to our country.

How did we learn about this intelligence? From the lead al Qaeda person at the FBI. A leaderless FBI puts us in a danger. That they don't have a leader making sure we're focused on getting counterterrorism information and keeping our country safe. And that's why what the Democrats are doing is so dangerous.

TIMPF: Well, North Korea, meanwhile, is escalating tensions with its neighbors and the U.S. yet again. It conducted a successful missile test over the weekend. Experts are calling it a key advance in the rogue state's development of a long-range missile capable -- capable of hitting the U.S.

The Trump administration is warning the test threatens any hope of a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Having a missile test is not the way to sit down with the president, because he's absolutely not going to do it. And I can tell you, he can sit there and say all the conditions he wants. Until he meets our conditions, we're not sitting down with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: So that's tough. So we have all this in the Middle East and -- go ahead.

BOLLING: The difference between North Korea and what we just talked about...

TIMPF: Yes.

BOLLING: ... al Qaeda and the Taliban is North Korea is physically threatening, they're vocally, physically now threatening us and saying they have a missile that can...

TIMPF: Right, can reach us.

BOLLING: ... reach the continental United States. Whether it can or not is still up for speculation. It doesn't matter. At this point, I think the Trump administration is doing the right thing. It's got the USS Vinson in the area. And they've got to -- we need to lean on China to put some massive legitimate military threats and pressure in that area.

It's a far different cry from this hypothetical war with the west that -- that the terrorist groups are waging. This is a real, true threat that we can feel.

WILLIAMS: To Nikki Haley's point, though, we talk a lot about diplomacy being the preferred option, but goodness. It doesn't seem to me like North Korea wants that at all. And...

COHEN: It doesn't work. All of those years under President Obama, he talked about strategic patience, which was, you know, another way of saying doing nothing. Sanctions have failed to work.

And of course, I'd like to see diplomacy and sanction work before we ever took a risk on a military operation, which could be devastating. It could clearly go wrong.

But the difference with North Korea, they -- the leader doesn't care about his people starving.

TIMPF: Exactly. Sanctions are tough.

COHEN: They squeeze them the only -- his people are going to get hurt. They're going to starve, and he's not going to care, because he doesn't want a regime change. So he'll do -- Kim Jong-un will do anything to hold onto power. So my fear is that more sanctions are not going to work, but then what do we have left?

BOLLING: You know -- you know what we do have? You know that six -- I'm sorry, that six-ton, 12,000-pound MOAB bomb that we dropped on Afghanistan to level the tunnels? There...

TIMPF: Yes, but there's nuclear installations dispersed all over North Korea. They're very close to South Korea.

BOLLING: But Kat, we know -- we know where those installations are.

TIMPF: Not all of them. No, we don't.

BOLLING: And we can eliminate their ability to deliver this missile.

AVELLA: The North Korean leader has made it very clear he wants to bring destruction to America. We should take him seriously.

And Americans give billions of their tax dollars every year to have a military that is better than any other in the world, and we don't need to outsource it to China to get North Korea to help us out. We don't need to outsource to Russia to get us -- to help us with North Korea.

TIMPF: So what are you suggesting, specifically?

AVELLA: If he wants to continue to rattle and make noise...

WILLIAMS: Antagonize.

AVELLA: ... and antagonize America and continue these missile launches, America should use every tool we have in our arsenal to make sure that doesn't happen.

TIMPF: It would be very -- cost a lot of lives.

BOLLING: A libertarian would agree with that, though.

TIMPF: If we have to, yes. And I think that's...

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: ... homeland and our strong allies.

TIMPF: If there is no other option, absolutely. But -- all right.

Chelsea Manning is about to be released from military prison, and she'll be getting benefits from the federal government. You won't believe when "The Fox News Specialists" comes right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Adriana Cohen and David Avella. So let's continue our conversation.

Private Chelsea Manning is set to be released from military prison on Wednesday, and she'll be getting a softer landing than many expect. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for giving away hundreds of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks back in 2010. But President Obama granted clemency to Manning in the final days of his administration. Manning ended up serving only seven years in prison.

When Manning departs this week, she'll remain an active duty but unpaid soldier and receive health care benefits and other benefits as she appeals her court-martial conviction.

Eric, so they say the reason why statutorily, throughout her appeals process, rather, she is to be deemed to have these benefits. Your take on this is?

BOLLING: I think this is -- listen, I'm on record as saying I think this Snowden issue, he was a whistleblower. He was a hero, not treasonous; not a traitor.

I have a different feeling about Chelsea Manning. Manning released information, the whereabouts of some of our undercover operatives, some of our military strategies, only in an attempt to say that the U.S. -- anti- U.S., antiwar posture. That put a lot of Americans in danger.

TIMPF: No, it didn't.

BOLLING: I think -- I think what Snowden did was -- was open to the world that the U.S. government was violating our Fourth Amendment rights, and I think that was very much constitutional what he did. What Manning did, I think, was put a lot of people in danger.

WILLIAMS: Kat.

TIMPF: Yes, the Pentagon's chief investigator into WikiLeaks found zero casualties from the documents that have been released.

BOLLING: No, you don't know. We don't know that. There's no way.

TIMPF: If you're going to say there's no evidence on Russia.

BOLLING: If Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning was giving away locations and military movements, there's no way of quantifying whether...

TIMPF: Zero.

BOLLING: ... anybody died from that.

TIMPF: And I hate when people say that this -- I mean, Chelsea Manning releases information, as releasing information of wrongdoing. It was earnest release of information to expose wrongdoing.

BOLLING: There was not wrongdoing.

TIMPF: People say...

BOLLING: In his mind, the wrongdoing was that we were -- we were at war. That was the -- that was the wrongdoing.

TIMPF: People saying that this shows that you won't be able, that you can just threaten our national security and then get away with it, there were consequences. Seven years in prison is a long time. Thirty-five years is as long as spies, murderers and rapists, longer than they spend in prison. I think this was perfectly fair. I think it was right to commute the sentence, not to complete expunge it but commute it, absolutely.

WILLIAMS: So -- I'm coming to you in one second, David. So I hear you two debating the intentionality component between these two, and that being a very important distinguishing feature. Does that make a difference for you, David?

AVELLA: My friends, there is a far bigger issue here. What is the value of a security clearance when you can openly have a security clearance, give away national security secrets, and get, in essence, slapped on the wrist with seven years?

TIMPF: That's not a slap on the wrist.

WILLIAMS: Can you distinguish -- can you distinguish it, though, from Snouden [SIC]? Snowden, rather.

AVELLA: Major U.S. secrets were given away.

WILLIAMS: ... was zero.

AVELLA: That is treason. And in this country, treason can be -- gone all the way to death. Chelsea Manning didn't get death. Despite the fact that she gave national security...

TIMPF: Do you think that she should have gotten death?

AVELLA: Because -- we don't know what the president's ultimate thoughts were when he commuted her sentence, but part of it -- there are many who believe it was because of her political persuasions.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Well, that is pure speculation.

AVELLA: We don't know what -- we don't know the reason.

TIMPF: I highly doubt that the president looks at people's political persuasions when deciding when to commute or not commute.

BOLLING: If you're going to commute a sentence of a -- someone who is a traitor, someone who gave away military secrets -- installations, where our movements are going on -- what are you telling the next person?

AVELLA: That's exactly right.

TIMPF: She spent seven years in prison.

BOLLING: Seven years, that's not enough, Kat.

WILLIAMS: Adriana, your take?

BOLLING: Not enough.

TIMPF: I don't want to spend seven years in prison. I'd do anything to avoid that.

COHEN: I think...

AVELLA: Well, hopefully, you wouldn't give away national security secrets.

TIMPF: I would.

COHEN: I think it sets a dangerous preceden. When someone is given a high-level security clearance, they need to respect it. And when they don't, and they're reckless with that information like Hillary Clinton was, then they're putting our nation's security at risk. And we should be very tough on these people, whether it's a high-level politician like Hillary Clinton or it's a member of our military, or even a civilian.

We should all be held to the same standard, and that's why it was so egregious that Hillary Clinton destroyed 33,000 emails. She was reckless with classified information, and she got a free pass.

And, you know, I can -- I understand what you're saying, Kat. You know, Chelsea Manning got seven years. That's better than nothing. Hillary Clinton has gotten -- has faced zero consequences, period.

TIMPF: Not every situation is about Hillary Clinton.

WILLIAMS: I agree with you on Hillary Clinton.

COHEN: We're talking about keeping our nation's secrets secure. We know that she was reckless with classified information.

BOLLING: Reckless? Oh, you mean Hillary?

COHEN: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Chelsea Manning, we know she intended her actions. But again, I think we're having a greater conversation around the political implications. And for me, as an attorney, I wouldn't want that to be a part of her legal outcomes. You know, as this is appealed and we talk about clemency. Her political leanings shouldn't be a part of it.

BOLLING: She was court-martialed.

WILLIAMS: No, no.

BOLLING: She was court-martialed.

WILLIAMS: I'm with you.

BOLLING: Found guilty. And Obama -- President Obama was the one...

WILLIAMS: He made a clemency movement.

BOLLING: ... who reversed that. That's insane.

WILLIAMS: We don't know any facts. Right, but we don't...

BOLLING: You're telling the next whistleblower -- not even whistleblower. You're telling the next treasonous traitor...

TIMPF: I agree that you shouldn't leak national secrets if the government was doing what it's supposed to be doing.

BOLLING: ... that if you're going to do something, you can get away with it, too.

WILLIAMS: We should not do this. We all agree on that. I'm just not sure that I'm convinced it was about political leanings...

TIMPF: Yes, absolutely not.

WILLIAMS: ... that granted clemency.

But the newly-crowned Miss USA creating a massive uproar online about her response about health care. Right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIMPF: Before the crown has settled onto her head, the new Miss USA is embroiled in a controversy, all over a question about health care during last night's pageant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIANNE HOUGH, CO-HOST, MISS USA: Do you think affordable health care for all U.S. citizens is a right or a privilege and why?

KARA MCCULLOUGH, MISS USA: I'm definitely going to say it's a privilege. As a government employee, I am granted health care, and I see firsthand that for one to have health care, you need to have a job. So therefore, we need to continue to cultivate this environment that we're given the opportunity of health care as well as jobs to all the American citizens worldwide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: That response is causing a far-left freak-out online, all for daring to have a reasonable opinion. Right?

I hate this -- I hate this idea that, because you say health care doesn't always have to come from the government, essentially what she was saying, that that means that you want everybody to die or something. I don't understand.

COHEN: Exactly. That -- that's such a false choice, so to speak.

TIMPF: Yes.

COHEN: Good for her for speaking her mind and not being afraid to be a little bit different.

I agree with her. I think health care is a privilege, not a right. And I like the fact that she's pro jobs at 25 years old. I hope she voted for Donald Trump, who is her jobs president.

But that being said, I like -- I like what she had to say, and I think it's sad in our country that there are -- people who attacked her online can't handle diversity of thought.

TIMPF: Exactly.

COHEN: Diversity of opinion. We should all learn from one another and weigh different opinions and come to your own conclusions, but without attacking her. She's obviously an intelligent woman. She's going places. She's -- anyway I -- I wish she got more respect from her comments.

WILLIAMS: So here's the good news, right? As a former contestant, I can tell you, you should not be judged on the content of your answer, because we're going to have different opinions on these issues, obviously. But the delivery.

And so I was texting with one of my friends, and he says, "Uh-oh. D.C. just gave the conservative answer on health care. She's going to lose."

I said, "No, they're going to do the right thing." And fortunately, that judging panel did -- they were presumed to be more liberal as a judging panel, but they still crowned her at the end of the night, which I think speaks volumes about the system and what it does.

As for her point, I agree. Health care, a lot of people get this wrong. It's not a right, in terms of enumerated right. It's a privilege. But her point, I don't think that's what she was saying, that -- she says that affordable health care should be a privilege for -- and jobs are important. But what about the working poor who get up every day and go to work and still don't have health care? I think that's an important issue, as well.

AVELLA: Republicans need to recruit her to to run for mayor, and hopefully, viewers will help me recruit her. But the most...

(CROSSTALK)

AVELLA: Fair enough.

BOLLING: She's a bright, bright -- we don't want to lose her. We want to keep her. We need more like her in government.

Can I just throw something out here? The right versus the privilege argument. If it's in the Constitution...

WILLIAMS: It's a right.

BOLLING: It's a right. And nowhere in that Constitution does it say you have a privilege of getting health care. John Roberts may disagree. He saw it a different way.

AVELLA: Yes.

BOLLING: And that's why we have Obamacare, but good for her. Bravo to her. That's fantastic.

TIMPF: I just hate this idea that you can't get something from the government that you can't get it anywhere else. Often private solutions are better.

WILLIAMS: Right.

TIMPF: And when you have this kind of alarmism of everybody's going to die if you go to a private solution, if you even mention a private solution, that keeps you from finding what could be the best solution.

WILLIAMS: But I don't know, Kat, if that's what she was saying. She happens to work for the government. I don't -- I didn't get from her comment that she's thinking that everyone's health care has to come from the government as much as it should come from their job and their place of employment, whether that's private or public sector.

I think the problem for me is yes, I think you should work and you should have health care accordingly. I hate that there are many of us that do work and get out of bed, and that's why we have the working poor, many of whom voted for Donald J. Trump, because they believe, as people that participate in our economy in this way, health care should be something that they can afford.

AVELLA: For most Americans, it's not about privilege or right. It's about service. And if you can't get to a doctor because of the doctor shortage we face; if your insurance company has left because they don't want to be a part of Obamacare any more, you can't get service.

And when you do, you want to make sure it's good quality. That's why junk lawsuits need to be dealt with. Look, there are many things the Republicans in Congress need to deal with with health care, and it starts with service. It's not about privilege. It's not about right.

BOLLING: We are in -- we are having a doctor crisis right now. Unfortunately, I was in Denver -- Boulder, Colorado, over the weekend. My son spent the day in the emergency room. My wife, on Mother's Day. The doctor, a fantastic doctor -- Dr. Dorphy (ph), you're amazing -- he pulled me aside. He said, "You know what's going on here? Good doctors are take -- are pushing back on insurance. They're saying, 'I'm going to do a private -- private practice without insurance' because of the bureaucracy and all the hurdles they're making our doctors go through." You're 100 percent right. They're having a doctor shortage.

TIMPF: All right. Don't go away. We've got a special announcement in our "Circle Back" with our specialists, Adriana Cohen and David Avella, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Before we "Circle Back," we could not be happier today. There's a brand-new "Fox News Specialist" that was brought into the world on Saturday, just in time for Mother's Day.

Our senior producer, Megan Albano, and her husband Scott are proud parents to a beautiful baby girl, J.J. Olivia Quimby. Everyone is doing very well. Megan and Scott couldn't be happier or prouder parents. A huge congratulations, sincerely congratulations from everyone on our team to both of them. All of us here can't wait to meet J.J. in person.

And Megan, don't forget. Try to limit J.J.'s exposure to One Direction, Justin Bieber. Fifteen minutes a day, max.

WILLIAMS: So sweet.

BOLLING: So sweet.

WILLIAMS: Oh, my gosh, such a beautiful little baby. And I love that her name was a combination of both of her grandparents -- grandmothers. It's so sweet. The maternal and paternal grandmothers' names.

BOLLING: And Kat, she senior produced our show on Friday.

TIMPF: On Friday. That's why I was like, I just saw her. And now you're having a baby?

WILLIAMS: She's a rock star, man. That's a mother for you.

BOLLING: You guys have quick thoughts for one of our specialists? No one?

COHEN: Well, congratulations to Megan. I'm a mom of three kids, including twins, and holding a baby is one of the best feelings in the whole world, and having children is incredible. Life enhancement, so to speak. So I'm happy.

BOLLING: Allow me to ask you, David. GOPAC, tell us very quickly about GOPAC.

AVELLA: We're helping lead the effort to stop President Obama from taking out the Republican farm team, as he and Eric Holder work to take back state legislative chambers and defeat Republicans. We are leading the effort to make sure he is not successful.

BOLLING: So you're finding donors for all level of government? All elected office.

AVELLA: Federal and state, federal and state. People can go to GOPAC.org to learn more about GOPAC.

BOLLING: Very good.

Let me say thank you to both of our specialists, "Fox News Specialists" today. Adriana Cohen over there, screen right; David Avella on screen -- screen left.

And we thank all of you for watching. Make sure to follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on Twitter and Facebook. Remember, 5 o'clock will never be the same. "Special Report" is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.