Transcript

How will US respond to the death of Otto Warmbier?

American college student held prisoner for 17 months has died; reaction and analysis on 'The Fox News Specialists'

 

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," June 19, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Hey, everyone. I am Eboni K. Williams along with Eric Bolling and Kat Timpf. We are "The Fox News Specialists." Super busy news day, first I want to report that the role of the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, will be changing soon according to Fox News Channel's John Roberts. Mr. Spicer would be getting a promotion overseeing all of the White House communications. Now Eric, we had Governor Huckabee on our program just last week and you asked, you have a little foresight there about the likelihood of Sarah Huckabee.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Well, the reason I ask is because she's been doing a great job. And they moved Sean a little bit away from the day-to-day press conferences. Moved Sarah Huckabee Sanders to get to that seat, but the question is it's such a hot seat. Is this something you want?

WILLIAMS: Right.

BOLLING: Not only it's a career move but for your own daughter.

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: Right. I'm going to say, I would not want that job. That's a very, very hard job. And I'm not even just saying because of President Trump but the media. That's a very hostile relationship there. I'm not really jealous on whoever ends up with it.

WILLIAMS: But now onto global and very, very sad news, Fox News can report that Otto Warmbier, the United States (INAUDIBLE) freed from North Korea has died. The family issued a statement. Here is a portion, quote, surrounded by his loving family, Otto died today at 2:20 PM. It would be easy at a moment like this to focus on all that we lost, future time that won't be spent with a warm, engaging, brilliant young man whose curiosity and enthusiasm for life knew no bounds, but we choose to focus on the time we were given to be with this remarkable person, that statement from his parents. You know, Eric.

BOLLING: I just left my son. I spent Father's Day with my son. Flew -- left him this morning. This ticks me off. This bothers me so much, you don't even understand. I would love to be talking about this for a full hour. I think this is something that we really, really need to dissect, as we know more. So I hope there's no -- I'm not sure if the family will go ahead and do that. But don't forget, the North Koreans said he contracted severe form of botulism while in custody. These doctors in Cincinnati are the best of the best. They said there's absolutely no evidence of any botulism in Otto Warmbier's body. Also he was sent back in this -- what they call unresponsive wakefulness, basically brain-dead vegetative state. This is terrible. China needs to get on board and we really, really need to fix this because I think North Korea is going to be the world's global, not just the United States, our biggest problem.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, Kat, we talk about North Korea almost daily on this program and throughout the network coverage. But this is -- hits home in a very personal way. This young man went to the University of Virginia, so young, in the prime of his life, and his father I think puts it best, a parietal regime brutalizing his son. To Eric's point, when are we going to, as a world, as a global coalition, deal with North Korea?

TIMPF: Right. It's absolutely sickening. And Eric, I completely agree with you that there should absolutely be an autopsy. Clearly their story is not the real story, absolutely not. And when you get to see that trial, he's crying, you see what ended up happening it's, so, so sad, and it brings home what's been going on over there for a while.

WILLIAMS: We have to absolutely continue this discussion. But let's firt meet today's specialists. He was once a disk jockey for Bar -- and special events, and he even practice a little bit of criminal law for the past 25 years starting as a prosecutor in Miami, and now as adjunct law professor at the University of Miami School of Law, but he specializes, of course, in everything legal, Mark Eiglarsh is here. And she is the former dean at Iona College, a current professor in political science and international studies there, and she's also a pollster and specializes in everything politics, Dr. Jeanne Zaino is here. Thank you both for joining us. Obviously, very heavy and very heartbreaking subject, to Eric's point right after Father's Day. I can't imagine your father -- your son coming home -- basically a coma, a vegetative state, and then a week later.

MARK EIGLARSH, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW: I was searing what Eric was saying, and I was thinking about my kid. And essentially this is how I look at it. A man was given a death sentence for stealing a poster. That's it. They can say, well, he got sick. It's under your watch folks. He got a death sentence.

BOLLING: And the thing is, they gave him 15 years of hard labor for stealing a poster out of a hotel lobby. This is insane. So we hear this. We hear these human rights violations against his own people, Kim Jong-un. But then we hear about other people that there holding in captivity. Again, honestly, it's time now. It's time that the Chinese have said that they're going to go ahead and jump on board and help us out in this. They even said they may even institute some sanctions on North Korea, but we have to hold them accountable to this now. We need to say, you, if you're not going to do it, we're going to do it with you, China.

JEANNE ZAINO, IONA COLLEGE: Yeah, they absolutely do. And we should give credit where credit is due because the Trump administration worked doggedly to bring him home at least before he passed, and his parents were able to see him. That did not happen under the Obama administration and his father has raised that issue. So part of what we need to deal with is how we deal with these administrations in these corrupt governments who are holding our people and how we get them home. And to your point, we absolutely do need to do something in terms of retaliation on this and the question is what, and I think that's what we're going to wait to hear.

BOLLING: Kat, we don't want to start any nuclear war, we know that they have nuclear weapons, but we can certainly start with the leaning on China. On other words, making sure that China does in fact -- look, almost -- somewhere around 90 percent of the food that goes into North Korea comes from China. Trade, some 85 percent of the oil or the energy that North Korea consumes comes from China.

TIMPF: Absolutely.

BOLLING: It's time to put a stop. And if they don't want to do it, put a stop to the banks that do business. The Chinese banks don't want a sanction from the U.S. They don't want that at any cost.

TIMPF: Right, absolutely. Our own sanctions really, honestly, won't do much. It has to come from China. Absolutely has to. It really, really does. And this is just -- it's so sickening. I'm just so sad thinking about this happening. They're probably be excited for him to come home and it's just sick. Sick, sick, sick.

EIGLARSH: I don't hold my breath that they're going to change. I don't.

TIMPF: No.

EIGLARSH: We should work to make that happen. But right away, there are some kids may be thinking about going over there. I don't know his back story. I don't know why he was there. And I'm certainly not going to blame the victim. But anyone thinking of going over there for any reason they should think twice.

WILLIAMS: I want to bring this point up. Erik, you know, you have been a champion around China getting on board with this thing in a real way. I kind of speculate, what's the incentive going to be for China? I think now in the case of this young man losing his life for a poster, like let us not forget what is happening here. We've got to, as a nation, make them get on board, like this is not another one of these scenarios where their financial interests can outweigh anything here.

BOLLING: They have too. China has -- we have two buttons we can push with China. Number one is the financial, like you said before, we can apply harsh sanctions. The Chinese banks need that income. They need to continue to turn over their Yuan to do global business. Right now they're growing at some 4-5 percent. They need that in order to continue their growth. Just to sustain themselves. That's a big thing. If they don't like that, there is the threat of -- if there were any sort of military action on the Korean peninsula, specifically North Korea, you know, there would be literally 5- 10 million refugees flooding directly into China. They would be devastated. It would be devastating for China. And guess what, no one else is going to help them out. We're not going to take millions of North Korean refugees. South Korea, what we should do is put up the freaking wall over on the North-South Korea, and say, oh, no, refugees aren't coming to South Korea. This guy has been threatening South Korea for the better part of 40 or 50 years. They're going to go north to China. That may change their mind a little.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. I want to ask you Dr. Jeanne, certainly, if China wanted to they could be incredibly helpful around the situation with North Korea. What's it going to take for them to want to or to incentivize to?

ZAINO: It's going to take pressure on the part of the administration and that's what I think we're really looking for. And the question here, is the death of this young man going to be enough for the U.S. government to push China because they certainly aren't going to step up to it on their own, and it's going to have to -- we're going to have to use some financial pressure, some economic pressure. I don't think we should use military pressure, but we are going to have to work with them to say enough is enough. You cannot have young people going over and dying for these reasons. And one other thing, somebody needs to look at the tour group that let this young man and this group into North Korea. Because to your point, you really can't go where the state department tells you not to go and that's what happened in this case. There were warnings all over the place not to go.

WILLIAMS: And we saw Dennis Rodman going to North Korea last week as well, and may of us scratching our heads like why in the world are you going over here when we know what the situation is. This is a man who is starving his own people, he's absolutely deranged and crazed, and what circumstance does that even make sense?

EIGLARSH: Are we talking about Dennis Rodman?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Fair enough, fair enough.

EIGLARSH: I agree. I don't get the concept. We go over there thinking that we have these cherished freedoms that we love here in the United States, but you're one step away from finding yourselves stripped of your liberty and perhaps dead if you go over there. I'm just saying.

BOLLING: Think about this for one second, right now, the North Koreans keep testing these intercontinental ballistic missiles. If they do go ahead and figure out a way to put a warhead on top of one, their longest range missile, 30 minutes is the lead time between firing that missile in North Korea and Los Angeles. Now are you willing to risk Los Angeles? I don't know, Kat. Look, you and I are on the same page on a lot of these things -- when the U.S. isn't directly affected, but now the U.S. is being directly affected by this North Korean crazy dictator. It may be time for a preemptive strike.

TIMPF: I don't think so. I think that military action should be avoided at all cost. I think we should at least -- before we do that, try to put pressure on China. Try to handle it absolutely every single other way because then that's a guarantee disaster if we do that. I mean we could do that, we can get them.

BOLLING: You know the Israelis took out the Iranian nuclear set up in the 80's. They said it's getting very dangerous for the Middle East, certainly the Iranians. And they preemptive went -- to a preemptive strike on the Iranians and wiped out their nuclear program, at least set them back 20 or 30 years. Why couldn't -- it's not a bad idea to start thinking about doing that with North Korea.

WILLIAMS: I'm going to you this, Eric, and I'm not suggesting this good faith question here, there's such a thing as pressure on China and then there is an ultimatum with China. Is that on the table from your perspective? I mean, I know it sounds.

BOLLING: Again, if China could help -- it's not China who is our enemy.

WILLIAMS: No, no, it's not. But maybe they're better positioned to be more effective short of military action.

EIGLARSH: And as horrible as this is, this is a child of a family, it's one incident. And so the White House's position may be, look, we've got -- in terms of priority.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Mark, they're testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach Los Angeles technically in 30 minutes.

EIGLARSH: I understand.

WILLIAMS: Is this the grace of God that we've been able to successfully put.

EIGLARSH: Absolutely.

WILLIAMS: . intercepts that.

EIGLARSH: But you just suggested. You start going down the road.

WILLIAMS: Well, I asked the question, I asked the question, right?

EIGLARSH: Right. Well, you start going down a road be prepared to keep going.

BOLLING: You could do what the Israelis did in the '80s and say, you know what, we're going to go ahead and just wipe people out and give you 20 more years, or 30 more years before you could ever be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. What are they going to do? Fight back? I mean, you certainly would need China to get on board and say we're not going to fight you either. This is your thing with the North Koreans. The Japanese are on our sides, South Koreans are on our side. That would not be a bad idea if China says to North Korea you want to play with the United States this way? You can. We're not going to defend you anymore.

WILLIAMS: And I Guess may question is, if not now, I hear what you're saying about the loose authority, Mark, and I can appreciate where you're coming from.

(CROSSTALK)

EIGLARSH: That's the White House's position. You start here.

WILLIAMS: Sure.

EIGLARSH: You know that's how they think.

WILLIAMS: But sometimes I think one is enough, honestly, frankly. And for me this kind of instance under these circumstances isn't enough to call the action a completely unanimous response on this. I don't know what it would take.

ZAINO: The ballistic missile issue is a reason to consider it. I don't support it. I happen to agree with Kat on that one. I do not support that. I can imagine the president would, given all that he said in terms of isolation during the campaign. I do not think the loss -- the really unfortunate loss of this child is enough to start that kind of military effort.

BOLLING: Jeanne, what do you do? You wait until a missile is on its way to Los Angeles? And hope, as Eboni points out, that the missile interceptor works, and if it doesn't you sacrifice Los Angeles and say, you know what we waited. We shouldn't have waited. Or do you go ahead and say there's going to be -- by the way, if you do this with what I suggested, you could do a preemptive strike to wipe out their missiles, or their nuclear program, or at least put it back several decades, you will have a lot of innocent people who will die. The casualties of war will be massive. Tens of thousands will die.

(CROSSTALK)

EIGLARSH: Eric, are you advocating right now, if you're in charge, you'd say, let's go. Let's wipe them out.

BOLLING: Here's what I have said in the past. I said he -- this Kim Jong-un continues to test these missiles and put more and more danger to our west coast.

EIGLARSH: I'm with you.

BOLLING: I think.

EIGLARSH: Solutions?

BOLLING: . the next time you test another missile.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: I'm always going to be against -- I'm going to be very wary of killing innocent civilians, large numbers of innocent civilians. I'm really certainly am.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: But Los Angeles in our citizens. They will be victims as well.

TIMPF: A hundred percent, but there's nothing in the constitution that allows for preemptive war.

ZAINO: And there are things between going to war, and we could negotiate, we could pressure. We could try to defend ourselves.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAINO: But it's a huge problem, I grant you.

WILLIAMS: We do have to go. So we could be here all day, but I want to say, the question is, what are we waiting for from my perspective. More on this when we get back. Mike Tobin will join us and we'll talk about it. A dangerous turn over Syria, Russia warning it will treat U.S. fighter jets as, quote, military targets, after the U.S. down a Syrian government war plane over the weekend. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Welcome back. To recap, Fox News can report that Otto Warmbier, the Unite States student who is freed from North Korea last week, has died. Let's bring in Mike Tobin of Fox News with the very latest. Mike, can you tell us -- by the way, is there any White House response by chance?

MIKE TOBIN, FOX NEWS: We don't have any White House response yet. But what we have is a situation that was never very hopeful, certainly not since June 13, when Otto Warmbier returned to the United States, return to his hometown of Cincinnati, or return to his home state of Ohio, I should say. But all hope is lost now. The family says at 2:20 PM, he passed away. The result of, I guess for lack of a better term, injuries he's received. What the doctor determined that he has significant loss of brain tissue and that was as a result, somehow, of oxygen deprivation. They're not exactly sure on what happened, but whatever happened was not consistent with the story that came out of North Korea, that it was somehow -- following a case of botulism. They say it wasn't, the doctors at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center said the injuries were not consistent. They didn't see evidence that were consistent with the case of botulism. What they saw was a significant loss of brain tissue. That was more consistent with oxygen deprivation.

It is a heartbreaking statement that came out of the family, reads, unfortunately, the awful torturous mistreatment our son received at the hands of the North Koreans ensured that no other outcome was possible beyond the sad one we experienced today. When he returned to the United States his eyes would open but he wouldn't respond to people. The family said in the statement that they just released, that initially he did not appear to be aware of his surroundings at all, but they said his appearance changed. In fact, reading from it, within a day the countenance of his face changed. He was at peace. He was home, and we believe he could sense that.

So there was never really much hope that Otto Warmbier would recover. He had been sentenced to 15 years hard labor essentially for subversion, and the crime that he confessed to was that he had taken a propaganda poster. So it was something that minor that cost him to be sentenced to 15 years hard labor in the North Korean prison. Whatever happened, he sustained these injuries, or he was subject to a prolonged period of oxygen deprivation. And since returning home we're not entire certain what happened in the hospital on how his condition change. The Family said he sense he was home. They believed he looked like he was at peace. But sadly, his condition was never in a situation where it was going to improve. It didn't. He passed away at 2:20 PM this afternoon.

BOLLING: All right. Thank you, Mike Tobin. Back to The Specialists. Tensions escalating in the Middle East today, yesterday afternoon the U.S. military shot down a Syrian air force bomber on its way towards some U.S. backed rebel stronghold, with that the Russians delivered a statement saying it will target any, underline, any aircraft it sees west of the Euphrates River. Why would Russia care? Aren't we all fighting ISIS anyway? The answer is, yes, but Russia is a major ally to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. Eboni, so tensions escalating, what a mess it's getting in the Syrian Middle East.

WILLIAMS: This is where it gets very, very complicated, Eric. We know, you know, who is on -- kind of on the team against ISIS, but this relationship between Russia and Assad becomes very problematic in this area. And I've got to tell you I'm very concerned about the suspension of this hotline. This was done back in April when President Trump out the 59 missiles in the air to basically punish them for the chemical warfare there. It's a very concerning thing when there is this conflict around our coalition around fighting ISIS.

BOLLING: Kat, so one of the issues about this, about fighting ISIS, even if you push ISIS back, yes, there is a global coalition against ISIS, but what happens to all these territories that they used to have and that becomes a little bit of tension because Syria -- does the Russians gets it, the Iranians -- do we get it? How do we handle that?

TIMPF: Well, Syria is a mess and candidate Trump understood that and wanted to avoid getting involved. And now it seems he's quietly getting more and more involved, which is these little things like air strike here and now this, but, you know, there is no little thing when it comes to.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: But seriously, little isolated incidents, but there have been more and more. It's just so much more than just Syria. You have Russia involved, and this whole cluster of issues all brought together, which is why if he wants to have a war in that area, then you're supposed to be having congress debate and vote on it.

EIGLARSH: I'm very concerned. I don't know if anyone read this story the way I did. But at the risk of appearing like Chicken Little, I'm like using the F word, fear. OK. You've got Russia calling this an act of aggression. You've got Syria saying it was a flagrant attacked and where they'll be dangerous repercussions? Should we ignore that? I'm concern. Help me, Eric.

BOLLING: Here's how I'll help you. The 59 missiles that these two very brilliant young ladies pointed out, they landed at a Syrian air base that was populated by who, Syrians and Russians. I think Russia -- Jeanne, Russia has to say something like that. I don't think they're going to shoot down an American fighter jet.

ZAINO: No. But let's not forget what this is all about. This is all about what happens after we get rid of ISIS, which we will, because to your point, everybody is attacking ISIS, and ISIS is being pushed out. This is a question of territory and power and strength in that area, and all of these competing agendas. We haven't even mentioned Iran yet, but you have Russia, you have the United States, you have Iran, you have Saudi Arabia, and they're all competing. And these series of incidents that we've heard from Iran, the United States, Russians response, are all about that. What is going to happen once we push ISIS out? And I'm afraid as well because, you know, this can be a collision course for all of these powers and these superpowers trying to get that territory and get power I that area.

EIGLARSH: But Eric is not worried. I was feeling good for a moment. Apparently it's just tough talk for a bunch of guys.

BOLLING: No, I'm not worried about the Russians. I could care less what Bashar al-Assad thinks about us. That's the thing. Kat and I have been on the same page as far as about what our Syria policy should be. I don't think we should be there. It's not our fight. Until, what I thought -- in fact, what really jogged my memory, Axios today, if you don't read that you should, has a map showing the shrinking of ISIS territory. As ISIS territories shrink, you know it's massive. There is going to be a power vacuum in those areas, and you certainly don't want radical Islamists, Iranians, for example, picking up that vacuum of filling up that void.

TIMPF: Of course not. But as we get more involve, I'm just saying that you should -- suppose to go through the proper constitutional channels if you do want to declare war.

WILLIAMS: I would say a lot of people take that position of not having too much involvement in Syria -- see those photos. And it happens secretly every time you see those children and babies wash up, people take that position.

BOLLING: All right. We'll leave it right there. President Trump's legal team now fighting back at rumors and reports, should be reports not rumors, he's under investigation for possible obstruction of justice. Our specialists are going to help us make sense of all that, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIMPF: A top member of President Trump's legal team, Jay Sekolow, making the TV rounds over the last two days, denying that special counsel Robert Mueller has opened an investigation into possible obstruction of justice by President Trump. The denial comes despite President Trump's tweet last week that appeared to confirm an investigation, and a Washington Post report that said one was underway. Sekolow elaborated on "Fox & Friends" earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FOX & FRIENDS")

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: ABC News reported yesterday --

STEVE DOOCY, CO-HOST: Right.

SEKULOW: -- that in fact a -- their source, everyone's got these sources. Not supposed to be talking about anything, but everybody's, you know, sourcing and linking.

Their source said that, in fact, a determination had not been made.

DOOCY: Right.

SEKULOW: -- to investigate the president. So again, you've got Washington Post as their source, ABC News is having their source, meanwhile, none of us have been notified of an investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: Thankfully, we have two attorneys on set with us to help make sense of all of this. Although I don't even know if this is a legal issue, so much of the what's happening.

MARK EIGLARSH, VETERAN TRIAL LAWYER: So, listen, I don't know whether he's under investigation or not, but I've been defending folks for 25 years. They don't send us a notice when they're under investigation. So the fact that he wasn't noticed, imagine they're in the backroom thinking, "This thing about Trump, could be criminal. Hold on. Let's stop talking, we've got to give a notice to his lawyer."

But, come on.

BOLLING: James Comey said, in fact, no, he was not under investigation. So that's different than not saying anything, correct?

EIGLARSH: I would agree. When you're hearing it from the government, the investigators, that has a little bit more truth than his lawyer.

WILLIAMS: Notice about the lawyer, he said a little bit more truth because I will tell you, I have called the federal government grid (ph).

EIGLARSH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: So I -- wasn't Donald Trump, but also, "Hey, you looking at my guy?" Oh, no, miss Williams." And then five months later, indictment comes down.

EIGLARSH: It happened last week to me. No, he's not a target. But are you going to rest him? Well, we are eventually. That's like calling him, you know, we don't want to call him the beggar, we'll call him a roadside entrepreneur.

BOLLING: OK, OK. But then, if there isn't one of these, does "The Washington Post" have the right to go and say "Donald Trump is under investigation."

TIMPF: You can't completely blame the media here because Trump also said, "I'm under investigation." So that's a little bit to do with it, kind of a way --

EIGLARSH: And he is always under investigation.

TIMPF: Sure.

EIGLARSH: They're always investigating him.

WILLIAMS: Well, I will say here, and I don't mean to slip it, punctuation would have saved the president here. No, seriously. Put it in quote.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: What, wiretaps?

WILLIAMS: Wiretaps, you know --

(CROSSTALK)

ZAINO: But, you know, the biggest point here is that most people in the United States across the world don't care that much about whether he's under investigation. We have had now 72 hours of people saying, "Is he or isn't he?", when there are so many other things going on. And to your point, if he's under investigation, we'll hear about it eventually. And this kind of, is he, is he not, yes, he did say that in his tweet so he brought this on himself.

BOLLING: And by the way, if Mueller's hired 13 new lawyers on Thursday or Friday of last week, they better be investigating or they're going to be wasting a whole heck of a lot of money.

ZAINO: Absolutely. I mean, we suspect that they're going to look at everything, right? I mean, that's not a big issue. And so to have this guy go out there and say, you know, he's not. And by the way, Donald Trump says there's a witch hunt. Well, if there's no investigation, there can't be a witch hunt.

I mean, so you have to have both of those things go together.

TIMPF: All right. Well, some of the investigators hired by Special Counsel Mueller are coming under scrutiny for potential political conflicts of interest.

Kellyanne Conway highlighted the issue earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think it's relevant that people know that Mr. Mueller's team includes folks who gave significant amounts of money. One person, I read, gave more money than a single mom makes in over a year just to Hillary Clinton. Speaker Gingrich says that one of them was actually opposing the FOIA request for the Clinton Foundation.

So that's relevant information for people to have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: I wouldn't deny that a lot of this is political. I think it's pretty cool that a lot of people have political reasons for wanting him out.

TIMPF: So, why the lawyers were talking about this on Friday. Lot of the lawyers that Mueller hired, Mark, are big donors, Clinton donors, some maxed out to Hillary Clinton time and time again. Not only that, they're going to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on these investigations.

EIGLARSH: Right. And I actually find myself agreeing with Kellyanne Conway for the first time. I don't mind people knowing, but what they must have is a fair investigation. OK. I mean, everybody who investigates someone has some political --

WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask you, Mark, because again, 25 years in the game as an attorney, do you do political contributions? I'm just curious.

EIGLARSH: Do I have to answer?

WILLIAMS: You know, I mean, you are not on the stand. I'm just, you know, curious about it.

EIGLARSH: (Inaudible) contributions, yes, I have.

WILLIAMS: To candidates and to -- to candidates and particular party?

EIGLARSH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And do you feel it undermines your ability to be fair and impartial?

EIGLARSH: No.

WILLIAMS: OK. I'm asking because I'm --

EIGLARSH: Because of who I am, but I don't trust other people.

WILLIAMS: Well, maybe I'm just a cheapskate, but I don't make some contribution, so that's something that I feel like lawyers are going to be scrutinized under moving forward, for sure.

EIGLARSH: That's -- so they've given money, how is it any different than someone else saying, you know, "I supported them somehow." It's -- again, everybody's got political leanings. We just want people to be fair --

EIGLARSH: There should be transparency in terms of what they gave and who gave. And you know what, these lawyers have to be very careful because even the appearance of impropriety makes people think that this is a political witch hunt to the president's point.

I don't -- I'm not a fan of government attorneys doing that. They're supposed to be fair and impartial. They should be that way.

BOLLING: Clearly, when you maxed out a donation to a candidate, Hillary Clinton, you favor what she's all about and you dislike what the other candidate, Donald Trump, is all about.

WILLIAMS: And that's the problem, but I hear what you're saying.

BOLLING: Those are the people I would like be eliminated from that -- the council.

WILLIAMS: The presumption becomes that you can't be fair and impartial. I think that's where attorneys would kind of have to step up.

EIGLARSH: Where does it end? All right. So if it's not a donation, do we check somebody's tweets out if they ever made a pro-Hillary tweet? That means something if everyone went to a rally in college.

BOLLING: I think donation is a pretty good line.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: There's no -- yeah, there's no such thing as an objective human. That's what makes you human.

EIGLARSH: Yeah.

TIMPF: Right. Coming up, the latest on the death of Otto Warmbier, the United States student who was freed from North Korea.

And next, prosecutors set to retry Bill Cosby after a mistrial is declared in his sexual assault case. Will a second attempt result in a different outcome? Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists". Our specialists today are Mark Eiglarsh and Jeanne Zaino, we'll continue to the conversation.

The legal drama around Bill Cosby has no end in sight, the sexual assault case declared a mistrial after jurors remained "hopelessly deadlock". Prosecutors are now vowing for a retrial for Cosby, the Cosby's legal team sounding unfazed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN MCMONAGLE, ATTORNEY FOR BILL COSBY: What I would say to all of Mr. Cosby's fans and some of the folks on the other side in this, we have a wonderful criminal justice system in this country. Trust it, believe in it. I am confident that if this case is retried, he'll be acquitted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: All right, counselors, so there, we have a pretty standard statement from defense team after a mistrial, you know, not the worst-case scenario. But it's not like he was acquitted. So, as the prosecutors move forward, because they obviously have to retrial this case because of, you know, the heightened scrutiny around it, what do you expect them to do differently from a prosecution standpoint?

EIGLARSH: Unfortunately, they have what they have. We're on a CSI society, we don't have any DNA in this case, we have no video, we have no audio. It's testimonial evidence. And the defense has done what I do when I try cases, embrace as much as you can. And to just part company on a couple of details, and that's what they've done.

Trials are not about the truth. Trial is about what could be proven. That's very different.

BOLLING: Can I spoke to you guys with something? But the judge only allowed the testimony from three of the accusers. There were some 60 accusers.

WILLIAMS: Really, I won in counsel --

BOLLING: OK, right on counsel.

So, why wouldn't -- it -- will there be another judge, a different judge for the next trial?

WILLIAMS: That's my question, Eric. I think that possibly, there will be another judge. And if that new judge allows more of that testimony around acts -- prior bad acts and proving (ph) pattern, maybe that will be the only hope, I think, the prosecutors have a different outcome.

EIGLARSH: Maybe. But would you got -- you got 12 different jurors coming in and every juror decides a case based upon their life experience and the lens through which they look at a case. We don't know if it was one lone holdout. Was it half?

WILLIAMS: We don't know. Dr. Jeanne, let me ask you this. If you are on this jury, this new jury, how are in the world are you able to be -- we're speaking half of those, the, of course, objective and fair when the entire world now is being subject to what this looks like?

ZAINO: I think it's very difficult for these jurors. And I give them a lot of credit. They went -- I mean, they were, what, five days out, six days out and they were hopelessly deadlocked.

Very tough, because we've all heard the reports. We've all heard that he's accused of having done, and yet, you have to judge it on the evidence that's presented. And unfortunately, there is not a lot of evidence to put down there, right? I mean, this thing happened a long, long time ago.

You have the testimony of Bill Cosby himself, you have the testimony of the victim, or the supposed victim, and this other one woman, the 59 other women didn't take the stand and you have the mother. And so, you know, it's a lot of he said-she said.

WILLIAMS: Kat.

TIMPF: Right. And the reason -- I want people to look at this and think about why people don't report sexual assault. This is exactly why they don't report it. When you say, "Oh, if you were raped, if you were assaulted, why didn't you tell somebody?" This is exactly why.

EIGLARSH: Yeah.

TIMPF: Because it is he said-she said. And when you are a young person starting out, and the other person is Bill Cosby, you're going to worry that they're going to believe Bill Cosby. And how would you know that that might be the case? Maybe because almost 60 women have still come out and there are people out there who still don't think he did anything.

It's disgusting, it's sad, it makes me sick. And I'm not even talking from a legal perspective. I'm talking about culturally. I know I'm going to see on Twitter, "Yeah, well, people will false accuse." You know what, there's a lot of women out there who are struggling silently with abuse from powerful men and they don't want to say anything because people refuse to think about how difficult it is for anyone to believe them.

EIGLARSH: We have a --

WILLIAMS: I think that's very true. I think that we have to give a lot of credence to that because Mark's right, there's not about what happened or what didn't happen. It's about what you can prove, which is a different standard legally --

EIGLARSH: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: -- but certainly, you're right, Kat, there are women that know that the facts are kind of stacked against them in terms of believability component.

EIGLARSH: Because jurors can say, "We are 100 percent sure that he probably did it." That's not enough. In the case -- the Anthony case, jurors were literally crying, when they left that juror room, they were physically nauseous, holding back tears, some of them, because they knew that she was guilty, but the proof wasn't there. That's the best system we've got.

BOLLING: So they should keep -- then they should keep trying. They should keep what we bring to trial. If it's hung jury again, do it again, do it again, do it again.

WILLIAMS: And I expect, Eric, they will have to do that because the prosecution here, first of all, politically ran on this in his campaign. And I said that on the docket last week, there will be no closure if we walk away with a mistrial here. And that's important for the alleged victim in this case and even for the Cosby family. And really, I think, at this point, this has become such a polarizing case that -- for America on this issue.

So straight ahead, protesters storming the stage twice of the Julius Caesar production, that there can be a fascination of a Trump look-alike. Do not go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIMPF: Moments ago, President Trump and the First Lady released a statement about the death of the American student, Otto Warmbier. "Melania and I offer our deepest condolences to the family of Otto Warmbier on his untimely passing. There is nothing more tragic for a parent than to lose a child in the prime of their life. Our thoughts and prayers are with Otto's family and friends and all who loved him. Otto's fate deepens my administration's determination to prevent such tragedies from befalling innocent people at the hands of regimes that do not respect the rule of law or basic human decency. The United States, once again, condemns the brutality of the North Korean regime as we mourn its latest victim."

All right, switch gears to the controversial New York production of Julius Caesar, depicting a Trump look-alike being assassinated getting crushed by protesters twice over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop the normalization of political violence against the right. This is unacceptable. You cannot promote this type of violence against Donald Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to close.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Goebbels. You are all Goebbels. You are inciting terrorists. The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

TIMPF: Last night marked the official close of the show. But what's the broader impact of this production on this nationwide fight between what's considered free speech versus inciting violence?

All right, well, you know my opinion, it's free speech. You don't have to like it, but that's not really how you make the decision about what is and is not allowed.

BOLLING: So the difference here and I agree with you on the free-speech argument. You know, hate speech is protected speech.

TIMPF: Right.

BOLLING: But when it becomes dangerous and, you know, unfortunately for the Julius Caesar Shakespeare in the Park production, that was going around that book end, the shooting of the Republicans on the baseball field in D.C. on Wednesday of last week.

And the reason why I point that out is because, look, I understand that Julius Caesar was a figure in a Shakespeare in play and he was supposed to be the fascist that was supposed to be taken down. Even President Obama was that fascist that was taken down during his years. So, the next setting (ph) is Trump. It was the method that they've used to kill this President Trump figure. They destroyed him, they bludgeoned him, they stabbed him hundreds of times, they pulled at him. They kicked at him. As opposed to what the others in the past have been -- yes, they were killed but not in such a bloody, gory way. It was the political statement of that that almost incites violence.

TIMPF: But not illegal, right? Is everybody saying it's illegal?

ZAINO: But let's just be clear, the message of Julius Caesar, the play is absolutely opposed to political violence. And so I wonder if some of these protesters had stopped and watched the play or read the play because the message is not to incite violence. It's exactly the opposite. And in fact, in this production, when the killing takes place --

BOLLING: But look at this, look at this, watch that for a second. That does not look like an artistic statement of taking down a leader. That looks like a violent, murderous bloodbath.

(CROSSTALK)

EIGLARSH: It angers you. It frustrates you. It's horrible, it's abhorrent. That's what free speech is about. That's what's wonderful.

BOLLING: I --

WILLIAMS: We don't need the First Amendment for speech that's right (ph).

BOLLING: Speech advocate. But as you know, and we use the example that everyone use, you can't say bomb on a plane, you can't say fire in a movie theater. Not because of those words, because of what it makes people do after that.

EIGLARSH: Let's be more specific. In this instance, it's different to show something that causes people to be angry and then they may go and doing something violent versus yelling and encouraging them to do violence. That's not protected, but something that demonstrates anger, frustration, and then someone happens to do something, that's protected.

BOLLING: Then why isn't bomb on a plane protected? Because you're not doing anything, you're not waiting a bomb in an airplane, you're just saying --

WILLIAMS: This is a fictional play that depicts a (inaudible) art --

EIGLARSH: Because it causes an immediate reach of the police that could endanger lives.

BOLLING: Right. And you don't think something like this does? You don't think this puts ideas in crazy people's minds that say, "You know what, I'm mad and I'm going to act out on this one." Look at my -- these heroes of mine, celebrities and actors are doing --

EIGLARSH: Eric, I believe it does, and I believe some of the words that has flown from your lips in the last hour could do the same thing. And so that you can continue to flow those words to your lips, we defend actions like this.

WILLIAMS: I know. But I just see where you're coming from though, Eric. If the test is reaction, what is the anticipated reaction from someone's words or the artistic expression, it is something to really consider. I ultimately think it's protected. But I do think we all need to kind of --

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: No court does. I know court considers, "OK, well, is it free or not? Let's see how good it was or what good it's going to do." That's not the standard in the court for free or not. It's a free speech, plain and simple.

ZAINO: And this is protected speech, there's no question. But there's also, to Eric's point, a way to combat something that you find violent and disagreeable, and that's through your own speech, not through shutting down somebody else's speech, but pointing out that this is objectionable.

BOLLING: So let me ask you this, Kat. So Madonna is saying, "Yeah, you know, I thought I'd like to blow up the White House on a stage in front of tens of thousands of women", do you think that's protected speech?

TIMPF: Yeah, it's not a threat because she's saying, "I would like to, I think about it", it's not a direct threat. So legally, it doesn't fall into that definition.

BOLLING: Yeah, but (inaudible), is there no higher standard we hold to celebrities and people of --

TIMPF: We can do that socially, right, completely socially, but not legally, so. All right.

When we return, we circle back with our specialists, Mark Eiglarsh and Jeanne Zaino.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Hi. Let's circle back with our specialists, Mark Eiglarsh and Jeanne Zaino.

Listen, I just want to take a couple of seconds to say our thoughts and prayers go out to the Warmbier family. I mean, I'm just -- it's just blown away about that -- losing that young man. I'm going to turn it over to my co-hosts now.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, I would echo that. I mean, we -- Kat and I were In the Greenroom when it came across our phones. And it's just one of those things where, you know, like, you know, a reporter was saying, you knew this was probably the outcome but when you see the words, it just breaks your heart.

EIGLARSH: Yeah. I can't -- my biggest nightmare as I grow closer to my children is one day, there might be a tragedy. And this family is dealing with it.

BOLLING: Jeanne.

ZAINO: No, absolutely. And I mean, thank god, he was able to come home before. I mean, that's a blessing, I'm sure, for the family. But how do you ever get over the loss of a child, and to lose a child like that is just the worst.

BOLLING: Kat.

TIMPF: Yeah, it's absolutely true. And again, President Trump's statement, great statement. We don't know what's going to happen from here. I'm hoping they look in closer into what exactly happened. We all know wasn't botulism, but to look into it a little bit closer like you said, Eric.

BOLLING: Mark, we only have a few seconds left. Any legal things we can do, any sort of sanctions against these people doing business with North Korea?

EIGLARSH: I don't know. You know, what we can do right away, my focus right now, is anyone thinking of going to that country, go to Hawaii instead.

BOLLING: Yeah, 100 percent right. State Department says stay away. A good friend of mine just texted me, "State Department says stay away, stay away." Your thought?

TIMPF: Yeah, I'm not going.

ZAINO: Yeah, don't go. I have a college aged son and, you know, you have to be very careful. I could see my kid taking a poster, you know. I'm sorry to say that, he'll probably kill me (inaudible).

BOLLING: We're good? Good show.

TIMPF: Yeah.

BOLLING: All right, this is our, what, sixth week now.

TIMPF: Yeah.

TIMPF: Yeah.

BOLLING: So this week, just starting our sixth week. Just say thank you to our "Fox News Specialists" today, Mark Eiglarsh and Jeanne Zaino. And we thank all of you for watching. Make sure to follow us on social media, SpecialistsFNC -- @SpecialistsFNC on both Twitter and Facebook. Remember, 5:00 will never be the same and blow that 5:00 up right there.

"Special Report" coming up at you right now, five, four, three, two, one.

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.