Breaking down SCOTUS' partial reinstatement of travel ban

Did the Supreme Court hand the Trump administration a key victory? The debate continues on 'The Fox News Specialists'


This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," June 26, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Hey, everybody. I'm Eboni K. Williams along with Eric Bolling and Lisa Boothe, in for Kat Timpf. And we are "The Fox News Specialists." The huge, huge news day today, just short time ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its score on the Senate health care bill. According to the new estimate, roughly 22 million people could lose insurance coverage over the next decade, and we'll have more on this coming up.

Also this hour, we'll take you live to the Rose Garden where President Trump will soon be with Indian Prime Minister Modi, where there's been a lot of talk about boosting military cooperation between the U.S. and India. But first, the Supreme Court decided to partially reinstate President Trump's travel ban policy, and it will consider the case of the president's broad immigration powers this fall. The opinion today will impose the ban with the exception that it, quote, may not be enforced against foreign nationals who has a credible claim of bonafide relationship with a person or an entity in the United States. President Trump tweeting that he was grateful for the decision. Sean Spicer on the president's behalf said this.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: With respect to the Supreme Court decision on the president executive order, the president was honored by the 9-0 decision that allows him to use an important tool to protect our nation's homeland. His number one responsibility as commander-in-chief is to keep the American people safe and that's exactly what this executive order does.


WILLIAMS: And while some are calling this a potential victory for President Trump, rumors are swirling around Justice Anthony Kennedy's possible retirement from the Supreme Court. If Justice Kennedy were to retire, and that would mean President Trump would nominate his second Supreme Court justice in just six months. Now Eric, I have long held that as much legislation as the president can put out during his presidency, what -- will he define his presidential legacy are those Supreme Court picks.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: And this could be the second one now. If Kennedy decides to stay another year, it will be the second Trump pick in a year, so he'll have two, possibly a three if Ruth Bader Ginsburg decides to step down at some point in the next eight years. But let's look at this 9-0 decision.


BOLLING: . is a win for Donald Trump. The high court vacated or at least is going to put aside two lower courts estimations that it was unconstitutional. It's a big win for Trump. It's a big wake-up call to the liberals that the Supreme Court has moved to center-right, which we knew was going to happen if you have a Trump presidency. It will continue to move right, so reminding the world that the presidency is number one charged with keeping America safe. This travel ban currently will do that, and now it seems it's constitutional.

WILLIAMS: Now I don't know if I agree, Eric, but -- the court is moving right, but we'll get in to it. Lisa Boothe, your take on this news.

LISA BOOTHE, GUEST CO-HOST: But it could potentially move further to the right. And that literary the smartest thing that President Trump did in the election was released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees that he would choose because this is what really galvanized the Republican base for him. And if you look at the exit polling, one fifth of the voters had said the Supreme Court was their number one issue. They vote for President Trump 57 to 40 percent, so this was a huge issue during the campaign. But in regard to the travel pause, this is a big win for President Trump.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I like that. Travel pause.


BOOTHE: Yeah, maybe he'll listen. But, look, he -- President Trump has couched this as a national security issue all along, and it seems that the Supreme Court agrees with him in that. In part of the statement they said, they said it tips in favor to the government compelling need to provide for the nation's national security. So it seems like they do, in fact, agree with President Trump on that.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. With that, let's meet today's specialists. He's the father of five daughters, my goodness he must be busy, the secretary of state of canvas, and the vice chair of the presidential commission on election integrity, appointed of course by President Trump, and he's specializes in bow hunting, Kris Kobach is here. And he is a former director of Stanford Afghanistan legal education project, a former Middle East analyst for the Century Foundation, and a political pundit, and he specializes in everything foreign policy, Ari Aramesh is here. Thank you guys both for being here. I want to start with you on this, Kris. Now Eric says he thinks this is a court moving far to the right. But this is a 9-0 Supreme Court decision. We don't see those all that often. So I'm just going give you my kind of bird's-eye view. I don't know if it's a conservative or right-leaning move by the court, as much as -- it's really a legal no-brainer that the president enjoys broad authority on these issues of immigration.

KRIS KOBACK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF KANSAS: I used to teach constitutional law before I became secretary of state. I think the constitutional arguments against the ban are really weak. I mean the totally unprecedented arguments. And then on the statutory argument against the ban is a pretty weak one too, to the way the Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted those statutes to give the executive a lot of authority. So, I'm not surprised that it's 9-0.

And the other thing I would point out is something some people haven't caught onto yet. The Supreme Court won't hear the case until October, and they won't decide the case until November at the earliest. So that 90 days is going to go, that full 120 days on the refugee ban is going to go or the pause.

WILLIAMS: It might be moot.

KOBACH: It might be almost moot. And the exception that the court carved out was already sort of in the executive order in the first place.

WILLIAMS: 2.0, 2.0

KOBACH: In 2.0 and in 1.0. They have an exception for cases of extreme hardship, which would be people who had family in the country. So I think it's a really big victory for the president. And one other quick point, for the country as well, one thing I've written about recently is that we have -- our refugee program has become a conduit for terrorists just since the original World Trade Center attacks in '93. We have about 30 major terror use the refugee program to stay in the country or get in to the country.

WILLIAMS: Now, Ari, obviously, there have been some examples of that, for sure we know that. But there's also refugees that are really just seeking safe haven here. What is your take on how to reconcile those two realities?

ARI ARAMESH, NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: There is a statutory argument for what the court has done, but there's also a clause in that very immigration and naturalization act that the court is going to decide. And that clause trumps the earliest law and that says you cannot discriminate nor use preferential treatment for based on national origin and place of birth. That is a statutory argument.

WILLIAMS: And that's one of the reasons, by the way, Ari -- preference for -- Christian minorities was taken out for 2.0.

ARAMESH: Exactly. And also place of birth. We have people from Iran, Sudan, Syria, and so on and so forth, Yemen, and Somalia, that target their place of birth and national origin. In addition to that, there're constitutional elements here, due process, equal protection and the establishment clause. But the bigger scheme of things is this. Let's just go back 65 years ago. Can you imagine not admitting Albert Einstein? Can you imagine not admitting people who were deemed to be troublemakers, to be outside educators to this country?

BOLLING: This is a temporary travel ban while we figure out how our vetting system is, so that we can reopen the immigration status not only to refuges, but also people who want to come over on visas who are trying to make it a safer place, Ari. We're not saying, no, Albert Einstein and the likes can never come here, but he is just trying to say until were positive that we can close loopholes in the vetting system we're going to pause it.

ARAMESH: And which is -- what's he's trying to do, and we all know what's he's trying to do is try to appeal to some of the hard line elements within his own party. The travel ban is not going to solve any of these issues.

BOLLING: It's not a ban. It's a temporary.

ARAMESH: We're going to have ideological test. If someone is a ISIS sympathizer, he or she can very easily lie through those interviews and so on and so forth.

BOOTHE: I think there are a lot of Americans outside of the hard base that are concerned with the fact that you have Attorney General Session saying there are 300 refugees, there are active FBI investigations for terrorist related activities or concerns. And mind you too, these countries are either safe harbor of terrorism or state sponsors of terrorism. So I think there are a lot of Americans outside of his base that are generally concerned given those facts

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm one of those people outside the base.


WILLIAMS: And I do have a real concern about national security, to your point Lisa. And so, some of the argument is that this travel ban doesn't necessarily make us safer, Kris, that at least is what I believe the fourth circuit determined. But then, you know, some of these places -- if the president can make the argument that this is truly a national security issue, then I don't think -- I agree with you, there's not very much challenge that's going to circumvent that. I think though what I see from this court -- tell me what you think about this prediction, the burden has shifted. This will not be about the president proving that it's actually a national security interests. It will be about opposition.


WILLIAMS: They're going to have to prove this is discriminatory in its intent.

BOLLING: It's not even that. He doesn't even have to prove he's going to be right about it.

WILLIAMS: No, no, that's what I said.


BOLLING: It's constitutional.

WILLIAMS: That's what I'm saying. The burden has shifted. He doesn't have to prove it's that anymore. I agree, Eric. But the opposition will have to prove that it has discriminatory intent is what Ari argument is.

KOBACH: You know in legal terms the burden hasn't shifted, but in sort of practical terms, yes.


KOBACH: In public opinions. Because they now kind of know the Supreme Court is very skeptical, in of it for the short opinion. They showed some of the reason they were skeptical on the fourth circuit and the ninth circuit. And on the statutory argument, the president has clear authority -- the fourth circuit said, well, you have to show that it's good for the country to us -- to us on the judiciary. The statute doesn't say that president has to make a showing to anybody. It's in his view as chief executive, is this safe for the country?

BOLLING: Do not lose sight of the fact that this was a, Ari, a 9-0 victory for Trump.

ARAMESH: Well, this is not a 9-0 vote by the Supreme Court making a decision about a case that will be binding. They said we're going to look at this. And guess what, three of the most conservative justices in the court, Alita, Gorsuch, and Thomas, actually, dissented.

WILLIAMS: Because they want it to go further.


ARAMESH: Right, exactly. They wanted to say this is it. It's over. Just give the president carte blanche. But usually these opinions are about a paragraph or two paragraphs long. This was a 16 page decision or nonbinding decisions.


BOLLING: At least three liberal judges did not vote against.

WILLIAMS: To my point, Eric, I don't think.

BOLLING: Temporary ban in place for now.

WILLIAMS: Right. Which I think proves my point. I don't think it's them being further to the right. It's not just that political of an issue. It's just pretty.

BOLLING: So how do you explain the ninth circuit and the fourth circuit?

WILLIAMS: Well, for them it was. No, really.


WILLIAMS: . but the high court, thankfully, I wipe my brows, is being a little better than that.

BOLLING: Thank you. I agree with that.

KOBACH: I would just add to Ari's point earlier. It's not a political thing that the administration did in issuing this ban in the first place in January. If you look for example at Syria, the previous administration had been granting 93 percent of Syrian refugee applications. This is at the same time that the Syrian so-called fake refugees who are going in and detonating bombs in Europe, and driving vehicles into people in Europe. So clearly 93 percent was a little too high. And so we have to figure out a way of separating out the true refugees from those who are claiming refugee status.

BOOTHE: They have certainly become a political issue because you've seen this -- this is sort of one of the cornerstone of the resistance movement because this is emblematic to them of racism, xenophobia, whatever else that the president has been accused of during the campaign as well. So this has certainly become a political battle ground, if you will. And so I think that also adds to the heaviness of this and whatever the Supreme Court decision ends up being.

BOLLING: We have a big refugee program problem, not refugee problem, refugee program problem. Once we vetted them, or let's say, 18 to 24 months, whatever it takes. We let them come in and then we let them -- we don't follow them once they're assimilated into whatever societies they are, communities, then they are free to go. So there's a limited period of time where we keep an eye on it, maybe a year or so, I'm not sure, Kris. Depends on the case.

KOBACH: Some for many years.

BOLLING: And then we let them go.


BOLLING: That scares me. And that's why this 120 days moratorium is not a bad idea to make sure that we really want to do that.

ARAMESH: I'm all for vetting. My parents and I moved to this country. We waited for a green card. We came here, and look at where I'm now.

WILLIAMS: On Fox News. That's good.



BOOTHE: Just enjoying the day.

ARAMESH: Exactly. So -- but look -- let's get the facts. When immigrants or refugees leave Syria to go to Europe, all they have to do is cross a nonexistent European Union border and they get to the European Union. We don't have that problem here. We have two oceans protecting us. Eighteen to twenty four months.

BOLLING: There's four sides. We have two oceans, but there's a north and south.


BOLLING: . that they can walk right across.


ARAMESH: . Guatemala and across up to Mexico to come up here. But again, 18 to 24 months is what it takes. They have to go through a DOD interview, department of homeland security interview, the background check.


BOLLING: Is there an opportunity for terrorist to come through, Syrian refugees, terrorist or not, to come through our southern border?

KOBACH: Yes, absolutely. There's two half of this program, there's a refugee program where you're abroad you get the status there. But a lot of people claim asylum, and that is they come in illegally across the Mexican border, they're smuggled in by the same people who smuggling people from Mexico. And then once they're here, they claim asylum and it's a very similar standard, a similar program, you get the same benefits of the refugee, and they too can just disappear into the fabric of the country when their asylum thing denied. So we have to make sure that we stop people at the front end where there is any question at all that this person isn't really a refugee, this a person using the refugee program as a cloak to get in.

WILLIAMS: We've definitely have a vetting problem, Eric. I agree with you there. And I look forward to legally and constitutionally remedy that.


WILLIAMS: So coming up, the congressional budget office releases their latest numbers on the GOP health care bill. We'll have the latest on that. And later, it looks like there will be a troop increase in Afghanistan, so what does it mean for ISIS? Well, nothing good, that's for sure. Coming right back. And there is a shot of the Rose Garden where President Trump is expected to make a statement very soon. We'll keep an eye on that and give it you live. We'll be right back. Stay with us.


BOLLING: You're looking at a live shot of the Rose Garden in D.C., at the White House. President Trump is expected any minute there. He's going to make a few remarks. We promise to go right to the D.C. Rose Garden as soon as he approaches the microphone. But in the meantime, just a short time ago, the congressional budget office released its score on the Senate health care bill. The CBO estimated that roughly 22 million more people could be without health insurance within the next decade. That's 1 million fewer uninsured than the house bill estimated. Many lawmakers were awaiting the score before making a final decision, but the bill could still face an uphill battle with a July 4th target looming. Some senators are taking a strong stance against rushing a vote on the bill.


SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: The Republican plan acknowledges that we're going to still have this death spiral, which is sicker and sicker people in the individual market and healthy people don't buy insurance. They acknowledge this by putting over a $100 billion in insurance bailout money to try to say we're going to tamp down prices. We're not going to fix the problem. We're going to acknowledge the problem will continue forever, and we're just going to pile taxpayer money into it. That is just not a conservative notion.


BOLLING: However, there are others who are more confident the Senate bill will garner enough support to pass before the congressional recess. Listen.


TOM PRICE, HHS SECRETARY: What we're trying to do here, admittedly, is to thread a needle and make it so that as the president says, every single American needs to be able to have access to the kind of coverage that they want. Ensuring that pre-existing illnesses are covered, ensuring that there are no lifetime caps, ensuring that individuals, again, have the kind of choices that are necessary, so that the system is responsive to people, to patients, not responsive to government.


BOLLING: OK. Eboni, also in that CBO scoring, besides the 20 million uninsured, there was also a massive drop in the debt, the budget will see $321 billion in reduced debt over the course of the ten years. Premiums will initially go up, but then they'll severely go down after that into 2026. Planned Parenthood is defunded for a year. And there's a whole, whole heck of a lot of tax relief. So there's some for both in the CBO scoring.

WILLIAMS: I guess I was just hoping, frankly, Eric, after seven years from the Republicans campaigning on this and really making promises to the American people about it, and you know how I feel about ObamaCare. I don't like it, and so I was really optimistic and hopeful that something to bring those premiums down because that's my unapologetic chief concern. So I'm not overly excited about this increase, and then to come back down. I'll believe it when I see it.

BOLLING: Lisa, your thoughts on both sides getting a little bit out of the CBO.

BOOTHE: Well, look, I think this is going to be tough for Republicans. I think they're ultimately going to get something done in the Senate, but you can only lose two. So it is much more difficult task to get this passed in the Senate than it is in the house. And senators hold a lot of power. And we've already seen at least five different holdouts. They're all going to try to extract something from the conversations. There was a reason why majority leader Mitch McConnell released it as a discussion draft because he knew that there was going to have to be some give and take done. And I also think Republicans are looking at what happened from Democrats. You know I was at the NRCC during the 2010 election cycle where ObamaCare, they're studies that shows that it cost Democrats 5.8 percentage point at the polls, those who voted for ObamaCare, same thing in 2014, 2016, so it seems to be a big political issue for Democrats. So I think there's a lot of Republicans that are going to proceed with caution in weighing the different elements of this.

BOLLING: Ari, what do you think? Do you think -- so they have two to lose, do they lose two based on the CBO?

ARAMESH: It's not going to go through it. They need two -- well, they can't lose more than two, there's five people. And then, this is the very conservative wing of the party, talking about Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. A whole host of moderates are going to have a problem with this too. You haven't heard from the two ladies from Maine, or the one lady, actually, now from Maine, because Angus King, you know, is now replacing one of them, Susan Collins. But then we have to hear from Olympia Snowe. So the moderates are going to have a problem with this. The conservatives have a problem with this. But the facts are facts. Twenty two million people are not going to have insurance. This is going to be bad for people with pre- existing conditions. This is going to be bad for people who are older, who are sick. And guess what, the president made a clear promise during the campaign. He said if you have -- everybody is going to get covered. Everybody is going to get a great coverage and pre-existing conditions are going to be covered. So what shows us is that after seven years of Republican promises.


ARAMESH: . the Republican Party is just not very good at governing, and that's a problem here that we have to address.

BOLLING: Don't obscure that all though. Kris, one thing to consider is with the alternative is keeping ObamaCare, and there's a lot of Republicans who say, any cost we don't want our people -- my constituents to keep ObamaCare. One final thought, CBO projected 24 million would be covered under ObamaCare, only 11 million were actually covered. They're not a hundred percent.

KOBACH: So I see the CBO score is a shot in the arm for the Republican bill. The reason is the Senate Republicans are sited there thinking, OK, I've seen the house bill, not sure I like the house bill, and then they see the Senate bill, and they just learned that the Senate bill results in a 1 million fewer uninsured, and saves $200 billion more than the house bill does. So they can say to their constituents the Senate bill is better, and both respects in the house bill.

The other thing you have to remember is these five Republicans who've gone out on the limb and said we are no votes until you do something for us. It's a political ploy. Most of them are willing to take the -- and vote yes. But as soon as three of them fold and say I got the amendments I wanted, or two of them folds and say I got the amendments I wanted, then the pressure is immense on the other three. They do not want to be the one Republican who stops the repeal and replace of ObamaCare. So I'll say is going to pass, maybe not by the fourth of July, but it will pass.

WILLIAMS: Eric, you made a very good term. You've talked about at any cost. And I think the political costs, going back to Lisa's point that 57 percent -- it is so enormous on either side of this thing. I think it costs the Democrats hugely when they push this down people's throats and people weren't all that satisfied with the product and the result. I don't know, Kris, that the political costs are going to make sense for every Republican because if their constituents -- you know, we can talk about the $200 million savings -- I don't know if those leads matter to everyday Americans who are just looking at skyrocketing health care costs.

KOBACH: In a couple of the moderate cases, they might be thinking, OK, my constituents really don't want me to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but that's only like maybe one or two people, senators, in the entire.

WILLIAMS: I don't think they mind repealing and replacing ObamaCare, but I think they want something better.


BOLLING: But I'm going to agree with you on this, Eboni. Hold on. Here's what I don't get about this. I'm still trying to figure out how they come up with $300 billion deficit savings from this without really fixing the underlying problem. And they have premiums going down, and the only way they have premiums going down is by throwing taxpayer money at it. So there's money coming from somewhere. I can't find out where it is yet.

BOOTHE: And my understanding is that money is in -- the short term one to try to stabilize the marketplace which is collapsing. And also in the long term to allow states to be able to do some more things within the parameter -- like, for instance, look at the 1332 state innovation waiver, which is currently under section 1332 of ObamaCare. The problem is if you're in difficult for states to get those approved. And so, the Senate bill makes things like that easier. But let's be clear, both Democrats and Republicans have said that this needs to change, so it's not just Republicans.

BOLLING: I cut you short because we want to get to a break in case the president gets to the podium. We'll be right back with that. Ex-attorney general Loretta Lynch under fire by even Democrats now, all but over whether or not Lynch tried to keep the lid on the Hillary Clinton email probe. The answer is probably yes. And we're still awaiting the president. He's set to make a statement from the Rose Garden. Any minute we'll bring you that live when we have it. We'll be right back.


BOOTHE: Hi. We are looking at the Rose Garden right now, where President Trump is going to be standing side by side with the president -- or India's Prime Minister Modi. And what we saw earlier is we saw Vice President Pence there as well as Ivanka Trump. And they're going to be talking about how the United States and India can work more closely together militarily.

So Eric, obviously, another time for President Trump to be standing side- by-side with a world leader, talking about an issue of the day, something that is very important in talking about the two countries can work together militarily.

BOLLING: Very important country, very important relationship. And I'm loving, you know, look back over the last few meetings he's had with the leaders. They've turned out fantastic. I'm thinking of President Xi. I'm thinking with Theresa May, with German Chancellor Merkel. These are great. When these leaders, no matter what they've -- you've heard them say about him, when they're together with Donald Trump, he's -- he just overwhelms them. They like the meeting. They're enjoying themselves. This is very, very good for America, what you're seeing right here.

WILLIAMS: I agree. I mean, look, I think that one of the places the president shines brightest is when he's in these kind of world stage scenarios where it's not just kind of the internal conflict and things that we've seen from this election. There's the president now, it looks like.

BOOTHE: Right. Well, it looks like we're going to go live to the White House where President Trump is joined by the Indian Prime Minister, Modi.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Thank you very much.

Prime Minister Modi, thank you for being here with us today. It's a great honor to welcome the leader of the world's largest democracy to the White House.

I have always had a deep admiration for your country and for its people, and a profound appreciation for your rich culture, heritage and traditions.

This summer India will celebrate the seventieth anniversary of its independence, and on behalf of the United States, I want to congratulate the Indian people on this magnificent milestone in the life of your very, very incredible nation.

During my campaign, I pledged that, if elected, India would have a true real friend in the White House, and that is now exactly what you have, a true friend.

The friendship between the United States and India is built on shared values, including our shared commitment to democracy. Not many people know it, but both American and the Indian constitutions begin with the same three very beautiful words: "We, the people."

The prime minister and I both understand the crucial importance of those words, which helps to form the foundation of cooperation between our two countries. Relations between countries are strongest when they're devoted to the interests of the people we serve, and after our meetings today, I will say that the relationship between India and the United States has never been stronger, has never been better.

I'm proud to announce to the media, to the American people and to the Indian people that Prime Minister Modi and I are world leaders in social media. We're believers. Giving the citizens of our countries the opportunity to hear directly from their elected officials and for us to hear directly from them. I guess it's worked very well in both cases.

I am thrilled to salute you, Prime Minister Modi, and the Indian people for all that you are accomplishing together. Your accomplishments have been vast. India has the fastest-growing economy in the world. We hope we're going to be catching you very soon in terms of percentage increase, I have to tell you that. We're working on it.

In just two weeks, you will begin to implement the largest tax overhaul in your country's history. We're doing that also, by the way. Creating great new opportunities for your citizens. You have a big vision for improving infrastructure, and you are fighting government corruption, which is always a grave threat to democracy.

Together our countries can help chart an optimistic path into the future, one that unleashes the power of new technology, new infrastructure and the enthusiasm and excitement of very hard-working and very dynamic people.

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Prime Minister, to create jobs in our countries; to grow our economies; and to create a trading relationship that is fair and reciprocal. It is important that barriers be removed to the export of U.S. goods into your markets and that we reduce our trade deficit with your country.

I was pleased to learn about an Indian airline's recent order of 100 new American planes, one of the largest orders of its kind, which will support thousands and thousands of American jobs.

We're also looking forward to exporting more American energy to India as your economy grows, including major long-term contracts to purchase American natural gas which are right now being negotiated, and we will sign them. I'm trying to get the price up a little bit.

To further our economic relationship, I'm excited to report that the prime minister has invited my daughter, Ivanka, to lead the U.S. delegation to the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in India this fall, and I believe she has accepted.

Finally, the security partnership between the United States and India is incredibly important. Both our nations have been struck by the evils of terrorism, and we are both determined to destroy terrorist organizations and the radical ideology that drives them. We will destroy radical Islamic terrorism.

Our militaries are working every day to enhance cooperation between our military forces; and next month, they will join together with the Japanese navy to take part in the largest maritime exercise ever conducted in the vast Indian Ocean.

I also thank the Indian people for their contributions to the effort in Afghanistan and for joining us in applying new sanctions against the North Korean regime. The North Korean regime is causing tremendous problems and is something that has to be dealt with and probably dealt with rapidly.

Working together, I truly believe our two countries can set an example for many other nations; make great strides in defeating common threats; and make great progress in unleashing amazing prosperity and growth.

Prime Minister Modi, thank you again for joining me today and for visiting our country and our wonderful White House and Oval Office. I enjoyed our very productive conversation this afternoon and look forward to its continuation tonight at dinner. The future of our partnership has never looked brighter. India and the United States will always be tied together in friendship and respect.

Prime Minister Modi, thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

NARENDRA MODI, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA: President Trump, first lady, vice president, ladies and gentlemen of the media.


(THROUGH TRANSLATOR): From the whole, to the end of our talk, President Trump's welcome was held with friendliness. His warm welcome to the White House by himself and the first lady. I would like to thank both of you from the bottom of my heart for this warm welcome.

WILLIAMS: I want to say that I see a humbleness and a sense of humility from President Trump, Eric, with that way that he was engaging with Prime Minister Modi.

BOLLING: Did you see the embrace?

WILLIAMS: I saw the embrace.

BOLLING: Did you see the hug?

WILLIAMS: Even the tone of his voice, the pacing, the cadence. Really, truly, it is a softer side of President Trump. Not in a -- you know, still a strong leader, but I like that side of President Trump.

BOLLING: Narendra Modi, the prime minister, they embraced. That's going to be noteworthy.

BOOTHE: They embraced with a hug.

WILLIAMS: To be clear.

BOLLING: You can see that in a lot of places. But understand this. And President Trump said we are true friends. He's talking about India and the United States. With shared values and a shared constitutional democracy. He talked about "we, the people."

But more importantly, he mentioned North Korea.


BOLLING: Don't forget how imminent and how important North Korea is on the world global stage for security. And if you get India and if you get the world on North Korea, to back off. You get China involved, as well. That will help go a long way.

BOOTHE: And this also comes on the heels of President Trump's very successful trip abroad, both in Europe as well as meeting with the Gulf states, talking about some of these very issues. Talking about terrorism. How do we work together? Intelligence sharing. Ways that our country can try to combat some of these things we see. We saw just the latest wave of attacks in Europe with ISIS, and then, you know, we also had Secretary Mattis not too long ago say that we're not winning the war in Afghanistan, and changes need to be happening there. So this is a very timely and important conversation that he is having with India's leader.

BOLLING: Let me throw something in here. I'm sorry.


BOLLING: Kris, it needs to be noted India has -- has nukes.

KOBACH: Yes, and India is right next to Pakistan, and India in right in the center of this part of the world, where radical Islamism has some of its hotbeds. And so 100 more planes provided by the United States to a very important, close ally is a good thing. And that's -- it changes the balance against ISIS and against some of ISIS's harboring countries. So this is all good for the U.S. fight in the war on terrorism.

WILLIAMS: And two things I really like about this is when we call for the world coalition against North Korea, Eric, this is certainly what this looks like.

BOLLING: Good to have a nuke partner on your side. Right?

WILLIAMS: Very, very good when dealing with something as hostile as North Korea.

And the other thing I really like here is the president giving deference and discretion, rather, to Secretary Mattis on the issue of what to do. Who knows better than your defense secretary? So I was very pleased with that.

BOLLING: Especially one that's nicknamed "Mad Dog."

BOOTHE: And Ari, during -- while the president was speaking, you said, "I agree." What was that -- what were you agreeing to?

ARAMESH: North Korea is a major problem and has been a problem for some time. But the problem -- and the problem is that they have nukes. They have nuclear warheads. So we can't just do what the Israelis did to the Iraqis in the early '80s and go bomb them, because then they can retaliate against Seoul. They can retaliate against Japan and so on and so forth.

Here's the thing. India is a major ally.

BOLLING: Should we -- should we wait till they fire them at the U.S.?

ARAMESH: Absolutely not, but what we've got to do...

BOLLING: Well, what can we do?

ARAMESH: We can't start a nuclear war.

BOLLING: We don't...

ARAMESH: Would you be OK with a nuclear attack against Seoul by North Korea?

BOLLING: No, by no means.

ARAMESH: Then what should we do?

BOLLING: I think you can...

ARAMESH: Sanction them, pressure them.

BOLLING: ... nonnuclear -- use nonnuclear methods and disable their nuclear program. And you can do that.

ARAMESH: Sanction them and pressure them.

BOOTHE: What is the intelligence like? Because -- OK, all right. We've got to leave. We're going to have this conversation during the break, I assure you.

Coming up, government websites hacked by a group spewing pro-ISIS propaganda. This as the U.S. weighs sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The latest in the war against ISIS just ahead.

And later, it's the eve of something very special for Mr. Eric Bolling. What could it be? That's coming right up. I think the book might give it away.


WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists are Kris Kobach and Ari Aramesh. Let's continue the conversation.

Nearly a dozen government websites in Ohio, as well as New York and Maryland, hacked this weekend by a group spouting pro-ISIS propaganda. The group, which calls itself Team System DZ, posted a message professing love for the terrorist group, as well as a warning to President Trump and the American people.

OK, Kris, I'm going to start with you. Obviously, no one wants to see ISIS growing in this direction. The digital and social media imprint has been a humongous problem. How do we contain it?

KOBACH: Well, there are some things that are being done. I can tell you this. That as the head of a government agency, we are constantly worried about people hacking.

Now that ISIS, or at least ISIS sympathizers, are getting into the hacking game, that increases the -- the importance of us taking every measure we can. We do things like hiring outside groups to red flag and try to hack in and show us where our weaknesses are. But this just elevates the importance of it.

And you know, putting out a message, a pro-ISIS message, on the front page, that's bad, but it could be a lot worse, and thankfully, at this point, it's not. You haven't seen them actually been able to hack and get into the databases the governments have.

BOLLING: Has Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on this group? What's it called?

WILLIAMS: On the ISIS hack.

BOLLING: Team Systems DZ?

BOOTHE: Not yet, but there's still time.

WILLIAMS: It's early, Eric.

BOOTHE: Wait until tomorrow at least.

ARAMESH: Wait until Trump tweets about it tomorrow morning. We'll find out.

But the problem here is cybersecurity is much more important than the issue of refugees. That is the real threat that is a real problem. As ISIS becomes more and more irrelevant, as they're going to lose more ground in Iraq -- the fight for Mosul is almost over; they're going to lose more ground in Syria -- the fight for Raqqah is over; our U.S.-backed coalition in the north is pushing through.

And we're going to shoot down any plane that goes over -- you know, over our guys. We're not going to take that empty Russian threat seriously. I don't know why they did it. Maybe they thought Trump was bluffing, and he's not going to shoot down Russian planes. But if they shoot down American planes, you can bet, you can make sure, you can be rest assured the U.S. will respond.

ISIS becomes more and more irrelevant. With that, they're going to go into cyber, and they're going to do lone-wolf, stupid attacks here and there, driving through people, driving with cars and attacking people.

BOOTHE: And we...

ARAMESH: That's good news, but also, we've got to be careful about the consequences.


ARAMESH: ISIS is dying down. We should choke them.

WILLIAMS: It's not good news.

ARAMESH: We should make -- no, it's good news that they're dying down. It's good news that they're losing ground. The bad news is we have to make sure that we're ready for these sorts of attacks. Cyber security and more law enforcement here at home.

KOBACH: It makes our immigration system all the more important. So the travel ban, the refugee screening becomes even more important. Because as those people are driven out of ISIS territory abroad...

WILLIAMS: Not localized.

KOBACH: ... yes, there's going to be more incentive to go to Europe or go to the United States and act as a lone wolf or as a...

ARAMESH: And again, not a single person from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia has killed an American citizen on U.S. soil since 1978. Those are facts.

WILLIAMS: But we do...

KOBACH: The Ohio State attacker was a Somali refugee.

ARAMESH: No, he didn't kill anybody.

KOBACH: What, you're saying he didn't succeed, it wasn't far enough?

ARAMESH: I'm just saying we've got to get the facts right. There is a threat. There has to be a proportionate response to that. You want to block off hundreds of thousands of religious refugees, people who are Christians, and Jews, and Muslims and so on and so forth that want to flee Syria and Iran to come here? That's bad policy. Guess who's happy about that? ISIS is very happy about that. That's propaganda right in their box.

BOOTHE: But we -- but we also know. Even the previous administration, officials had admitted that one of the big problems when you're looking at countries like Syria is it's incredibly difficult when the country itself doesn't have the kind of databases that we do in America. So it is very difficult to check and to be aware of the individuals that are living within your borders.

And not only that, we've seen reports of ISIS being able to print fake passports. So that's a big concern, as well.

So you know, I think that the concern is fair about vetting, particularly from countries like Syria. And as I mentioned before, these countries in the travel ban are either state sponsors of terrorism or state harbors of terrorism.

BOLLING: And let's not forget: if we had a President Hillary Clinton, she was going to quadruple our refugee program. We let -- let in around 115,000 refugees last year. She wanted to do somewhere around 400,000 or 500,000 refugees.

ARAMESH: Over ten years. Over ten years. Over ten years.

BOLLING: No, no, no, no, no, sir. No, sir. Absolutely wrong. We did 116,000 last year. She wanted to quadruple our refugee program.

ARAMESH: We precleared them, Eric. We precleared them, meaning they could be processed for refugee program over the next 10 years to come here. So it's not as if they were going to get on a plane and get off the port of Long Beach, 150,000 of them next weekend.

WILLIAMS: Ari, let me ask you this question. It goes to Lisa's point earlier. You said earlier in this program that you believe in vetting. Right?

ARAMESH: Absolutely.

WILLIAMS: OK. So then the question becomes, if you believe in vetting -- and we all agree with vetting, right -- how do you reconcile that with what we know to be very challenging, if not doggone near impossible problems around how to successfully vet from places like Syria, where we now that we don't have the ability to do so?

BOOTHE: And to that point, why wouldn't we want to make the vetting process stronger? Particularly if you do a short period -- a short window, 90 days or 120 days, depending on if you're talking about visas or refugees? Why would you not want the process to be as strong as possible.\?

ARAMESH: We should vet; we should ask questions; we should do background checks. That's why it takes so long. But a wholesale ban is un-American.

WILLIAMS: Is that a theoretical vet we're talking about, Ari?

ARAMESH: When people -- every time you go to a refugee agency to come here, there is a long interview to ask them a whole host of questions. And that's a good thing. And by the way, refugees actually make some great immigrants. They assimilate better, because they know they will never go back.

WILLIAMS: We have to wrap; we really do. But we will "Circle Back," don't worry about it, with our specialists, Kris Kobach and Ari Aramesh, when we return. And we have a very special surprise for our very own Mr. Eric Bolling. Stay with us. With the book.


BOLLING: It is time to "Circle Back," but first it seems that everyone is in sale -- and on sale in Washington, D.C. D.C. is in a sad state of affairs.

Just this weekend, it was announced that Bernie Sanders, the socialist man of the people, is under an FBI investigation for bank fraud, the same Bernie Sanders that preaches against income inequality.

Now, in my new book, "The Swamp," we take a look back at the history of the swamp. But "The Swamp" is not just about the many mind-blowing scandals of the past and present. It offers a future where we can start draining the murky waters. Trump can do that. President Trump has my book. And I offer him dozens of solutions to restore faith in Washington. Term limits is one. Lobbying bans, slashed budgets. I have a few more ideas.

But the swamp is ready to be drained, and President Trump is just the man to do it.

OK. Now it's time to "Circle Back" with our specialists, Kris Kobach and Ari Aramesh.

Now Kris, you were on board with the Trump train from very early on.


BOLLING: Can he drain that swamp?

KOBACH: Yes, I think he can. The swamp is so vast, and it's so deep that you know, it's never going to be completely drained. But some of the things he's doing, like putting limits on how soon you go through the revolving door and start lobbying, that's very -- that can be easily done.

Term limits. I'm a huge proponent of term limits, like you are. That's a heavy lift, because you've got to get Congress to vote for a constitutional amendment to limit their own terms. But we can at least push for it.

WILLIAMS: Well, yes, and you are running for governor.


WILLIAMS: And I want to know what your thoughts are about, even at the state level, because many people, you know, like myself, my mother, we hate this type of bureaucracy at even the state level.


WILLIAMS: What are some of your ideas about that?

KOBACH: Well, actually, term limits is one of the things I'm pushing for in Kansas.

WILLIAMS: Really? Awesome.

KOBACH: We're one of the very few states west of the Mississippi that doesn't yet have term limits, and we need it. It's the states that have it that get new blood and new ideas.

BOLLING: Drain the Kansas swamp.

KOBACH: Exactly.

WILLIAMS: That's right.


BOOTHE: And Ari, you're a national security expert. What's the biggest challenge we face right now as a country from a national security perspective?

ARAMESH: The rise of China. The rise of China and the threat to the global order that Russia and China pose.

I am less concerned what small regional powers like Iran or Saudi Arabia misbehave. I'm very concerned when big powers like Russia and China or India start misbehaving.

Let's go back to what happened in 1914 and then again in 1939. Small powers misbehaving, that's a problem. You've got to put a lid on it. Big powers misbehaving, trying to rewrite and destroy the global order that's been in place since 1945, that is the fight of my generation.

BOLLING: Very good. Mostly Internet fighting going on now, right?

ARAMESH: Well, cybersecurity is very important. But at the same time, hard fighting is also important, too.

BOLLING: All right. We're going to say thank you to our "FOX News Specialists" today, Kris Kobach and Ari Aramesh. Thank you very much.

And thank you all for watching. I'm Eric Bolling. It says "I'm Lisa Boothe."

BOOTHE: I'm Lisa Boothe!

BOLLING: Don't forget to follow us on social media. By the way, Bill Hemmer is in for Bret Baier tonight, I think. It's Hemmer time coming up right now.

BOOTHE: He's also Lisa Boothe.

WILLIAMS: Everybody's Lisa Boothe.

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.