Transcript

Bolling: Media hysteria over 'collusion' is out of control

Wake Up, America: The mainstream media is invested in a narrative and that investment is going belly-up

 

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," July 12, 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 Kat Timpf. We are "The Fox News Specialists." The White House getting back on offense in the wake of the Donald Trump, Jr. controversy, after Trump Jr's exclusive interview with Sean Hannity last night. The administration is moving to regain the upper hand and fight back against accusations of collusion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think if there's been any evidence of collusion in 2016 that's come out at all or been discussed that's actually happen, it would be between the DNC and the Ukrainian government. I don't often quote the New York Times, but even one of their reporters tweeted earlier today that why this example provides evidence of collusion, quote, cooperation was between DNC officials and officials from the Ukrainian government, not just some associates. Ukrainian action to coordinate with the DNC was actually successful unlike anything shown by Don, Jr's emails.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Also, President Trump said they have a Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network for an interview that will air tomorrow. But in release excerpts, President Trump claims it was Hillary Clinton who would have been Vladimir Putin's preferred candidates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If Hillary had won our military would be decimated. Our energy would be much more expensive. That's what Putin doesn't like about me. And that's why I say, why would he want me? Because from day one, I wanted a strong military, he doesn't want to see that. And from day one, I want fracking and everything else to get energy prices low and to create tremendous energy. There are many things that I do that are the exact opposite of what he would want. So when I keep hearing about that he would rather have Trump, I think probably not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: OK. Eric, that's an interesting theory from President Trump there that he would have been Vladimir Putin -- sorry, Clinton would have been the Putin choice really.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: I agree 100 percent. We've talked about that here on The Specialist. One of the things that Trump has done from day one, started rolling back regulations, releasing the energy market, and that has caused downward pressure on energy prices since the very beginning. Putin is dependent on the high oil price. He basically built an economy around a $100-barrel of oil. He's got a $44-$45 barrel of oil. He's sucking wind. He would absolutely been better off, their economy, with Hillary Clinton. I buy in to that.

WILLIAMS: Kat, you don't look like you're buying as much.

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: Well, there's no question that President Trump has done things that Russia does not like. I believe that there's absolutely no evidence that would suggest that Russian would have preferred Hillary Clinton.

WILLIAMS: OK. We'll get more into it later. But first, we'll meet today's specialist. He's a former U.S. congressman from Utah, the former chairman of the U.S. house committee on oversight and government reform from 2015 to 2017, and he's a Fox News contributor, he specializes though in wildlife photography, Jason Chaffetz is here. And he's an author, a syndicated columnist, and the host of the Naverrette Nation Podcast, and he specializes in everything politics. Ruben Naverrette is here. Congressman, I'll start with you. Much speculation around the relationship, ultimately, of Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump, you've observed this from a different vantage point than any of us here at this table. What's your perception?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: I think what Vladimir Putin ultimately wants is chaos in the United States of America. He's not in favor of any particular president or any particular candidate. He wants death and destruction to the United States of America. Creating chaos for the last six month, talking about nothing but Russia plays to his interests. That's what he wanted. He wanted chaos and he's getting it.

BOLLING: I think he would prefer a $100-barrel of oil, congressman.

CHAFFETZ: Oh, absolutely. I mean what the president's point about.

BOLLING: Do you agree Hillary Clinton would've driven prices up rather than down.

CHAFFETZ: Oh, yes.

BOLLING: . Donald Trump has.

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. I think the president's comments on CBN that will air tomorrow. I think he made two very valid points. I totally buy it.

WILLIAMS: I may come to you -- it's not just the economic consideration that we're talking about with Putin, there's other things as well.

RUBEN NAVARRETTE, HOST OF NAVARRETTE NATION PODCAST: Right, absolutely. I think that the argument could be made, as the president said, that this is something he would have desired Hillary Clinton over himself. But I think that he makes a good point about, sort of, building relationships with Russia, having a good rapport there. He doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation with Russia. He doesn't understand the many conservative members of his own party don't trust Putin or Russia. And I think he is oftentimes sort of the lamb laying down with wolves. He doesn't really get how serious this is.

WILLIAMS: Let me follow-up on you on that because I think there's -- go ahead.

BOLLING: Let me push back a little bit. Here's a guy who dropped 59 tomahawk bomb missiles on an airbase in Syria, which Russian members of the military at that same airbase. You don't think Trump realizes the seriousness of the relationship with Russia? And who's playing who here?

NAVARRETTE: In the aftermath of the Syrian bombing, you see he was very tough on the leader of Syria, but not so tough on Putin. He didn't push it all the way to the fact that the Russians knew about the use of gas.

BOLLING: He was threatening us at the time. Ruben, you remember him saying don't fly any of your F-16's around us. And then, he went ahead further and dropped bombs on air bases with Putin's.

TIMPF: Also, this was President Trump, though, not candidate Trump. There's no way Putin could have predicted all that. You can remember, candidate Trump was very, very kind when speaking about.

WILLIAMS: I will say this also. This is not push back, Ruben, was really a question for you. When you think about lying down and kind of not taking it seriously that's one thing, but then there's the alternative argument that says, well, maybe there's some strategy behind -- at least some type of conversational relationship with Putin, and Eric's question of who's getting the better of who becomes legitimate.

NAVARRETTE: Right. And had, I think, Hillary Clinton becomes president, we might have been having the same conversation. You know, it was Hillary Clinton who talked about a reset button about trying to say that it was important to have a good relationship with Russia. I could imagine a scenario where President Hillary Clinton would likewise be saying we shouldn't be a logger-heads with Russia. But the congressman's point is very well taken. As long as the media stays focus on Russia, as long as the Democrat Party stays focus on Russia, they're lost in the woods.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. I mean, I certainly think that that's -- you know, people want. Look, on my radio program, I get callers about this from both sides of the aisle. People, they really just want the president and the administration to get back to the governing of the American people. They want to talk about health care. They want to talk about economy and things of this nature. And Russia feels not just like a distraction, but really like a letdown from the business of the American people.

CHAFFETZ: Well, I think it's the mainstream media that keeps this perpetuation going on and on and on.

WILLIAMS: Don't you think the president has a little bit to do with that?

CHAFFETZ: But, no. They have come up with story after story that goes absolutely nowhere. Even to this day, we're into July, what's the smoking gun? What's the real hard evidence that there was collusion? I mean, just two weeks ago, the four top intelligence officers testified before the United States senate. They have seen zero, not a single shred of evidence of any collusion. And yet, you still keep hearing about this story.

WILLIAMS: Kat, I want to get you in here one second. But nobody -- the media, congressman, didn't make the president tweet out that he thinks that cybersecurity -- Vladimir Putin would be a good idea.

TIMPF: The media was not in control of Donald Trump Jr's little fingers while he was typing those emails, OK. Those speak for themselves. To blame the media for the consequences that his own emails brought on, I think it's quite unfair.

BOLLING: This might be the first time we've agreed in quite a while. I'm going to agree with the congressman. Donald Trump can tweet and drives media crazy but it's still a choice. You know every producer on every network says, what's our lead story today? Is it going to be Donald Trump, collusion with Russia, even though we have not one shred of evidence, we're on six and a half months, almost seven months since he was elected, even before he was sworn in, and we still haven't found one shred. But, you know what, let's leave it at that. Let's do our A block, B Block, C block, and maybe D block on Russia collusion. You watch them -- look, we're going to talk about it in the monologue. I want to hit on that. But for god's sake, let's move on to something that matters.

WILLIAMS: I think they take the bait. I agree with that, Bolling. Corey Lewandowski, President Trump's former campaign manager, has some very harsh words earlier today for the leakers behind the Trump, Jr. controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Anybody, and I mean anybody who's not in the president's agenda that works in this administration should absolutely be removed immediately. I don't know who the leakers is, but let me tell you this, if it were up to me and somebody was speaking to the media or leaking information which could potentially be detrimental to the president and this administration of getting their agenda done, I would fire him on the spot, and Donald Trump will do the same thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Speaking of surprising places of agreement, I agree with Corey Lewandowski on this, congressman. And let me go further. I've been saying for several months now whether it's Obama holdovers or whatever, who cares, it's your administration now. When is the president going to step up and clean house to get rid of these leakers that are causing real problems?

CHAFFETZ: I agree with the second half of his comments. Absolutely, should fire people on the spot. You can't just leak information because it's your own personal agenda. But on the first point, that he should fire everybody who's not, you know, pro-Trump in the federal government, I mean, I think that's a little step too far. Maybe in partisan words, but I don't think you have to do that. You can do your job as a federal worker, but you don't have to necessarily go out and vote for Donald Trump.

TIMPF: I can think of a single example where it's been good for a free country to have a politician surrounded by only yes men.

WILLIAMS: That's called an echo chamber.

TIMPF: Absolutely, ridiculous. Absolutely. It's a terrifying thought to think of him firing everybody that's not pro-Trump.

NAVARRETTE: I think, to jump on what Kat was saying earlier, this idea of sort of -- it was the Russians that controlled Don, Jr's little fingers when -- you know, arrange this meeting or when they send out tweets. There's a lot to be said for the dangers of the administration does to itself, the inner circle. Independent of who leaks what, Donald Trump and his inner circle have to rein it in. They have to stay off twitter. They should stop making everything so personal. The media needs to stop making it personal response. For most people they look at the media and Trump and they just see these two kids bickering, and it's impossible to say who started it. They're both behaving badly.

WILLIAMS: Go ahead, Bolling. I think he got some words.

(LAUGHTER)

BOLLING: I want to see him tweet. I want him to continue to tweet. I want him to tweet more. Even some of my conservative friends here, you're crazy, you're giving him bad advised. I'd give him this advice right to his face. Continue to do it, sir. I want to know what the leader of the free world is doing. You know who's the biggest leaker in the world was? Who's the biggest leak was?

TIMPF: James Comey.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: He did, fired him summarily. I agree with Corey Lewandowski. I don't necessarily say you have to surround yourself with only, you know, whatever, sycophants, yes men, but you certainly need to surround yourself with people who aren't going to leak. These are state secrets. These are national security risks that they're leaking. And it's getting very, very dangerous. By the way, a lot of people on the right are doing the leaking as well.

WILLIAMS: I was just going to say. We can't presume that all the leaks are just angry Obama holdovers.

BOLLING: Absolutely, not.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: Firing people who don't show allegiance to you is not cool in this country. That's not the way we do things here.

CHAFFETZ: I really do believe if you're leaking information, particularly classified information, put handcuffs on him and put them in jail. But Donald Trump is also in control of this because his department of justice has not pursued what happened in the previous administration, where nearly 300 people according to testimony that had classified information that mishandled it in the Hillary Clinton investigation. Have you seen a single prosecution? Have you seen them go after anybody? Nobody has been pursued. And that's on Donald Trump's watch.

WILLIAMS: And congressman, we know that the Obama administration tried aggressively to have, like a war on leakers, and it really didn't turn out that well for him, though. So maybe Donald Trump doesn't feel like it'll do much better for him.

BOLLING: Let me explain why I think that there has to be some sort of a happy medium between people who are like sycophants, pro-Trump sycophants, and people who are pro-Trump who need to be there. And if you're not pro- Trump, you should move on. And I've said this from the beginning, if Donald Trump comes in and treats the company like a corporation, were going to be better off. If he gets rid of the people who aren't on the team, get rid.

WILLIAMS: American team?

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Team Coke, all right. If you're on Team Coca-Cola instead of Team Pepsi, and all of a sudden you have a senior advisor who's drinking Pepsi around the office, get rid of that person. That's the point I'm trying to make. You don't have to say it's Coke or I'll die, but you can say it's definitely not Pepsi. What's happening is he's got a lot of people who are still in the administration who are Obama holdovers. Get rid of them. It's time for them to go.

CHAFFETZ: But this does start with the United States senate because what Mitch McConnell has made a big point of which is absolutely true, the Democrats are slow walking the confirmations. That inhibits the ability of the president to get his team on board.

WILLIAMS: OK, fair enough. We'll leave it there. Straight ahead, as Trump critics swarm over the Trump, Jr., email revelations. What Eric Bolling says it's time to wake up, America. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Time to wake up, America. Last night we had a special 11:00 PM live show, The Fox News Specialist after dark, so to speak. Anyway, during some very heated debate regarding Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, I said collusion in and of itself is not illegal. Well, the liberal media went apoplectic. But guess what. Collusion isn't illegal at all and chatting about adoption policy certainly is not criminal. Politico Magazine published a very nicely researched paper today highlighting several constitutional scholars and prosecutors who overwhelmingly agree with that thesis.

So what's all this hysteria about? I think I figured it out last night as well. This is a liberal media witch hunt, a witch hunt not seen since Salem circa 1692. Since the election, the liberal media has been accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians. They are totally invested in that narrative. Completely invested in it. The problem is their investment is going belly up. For six months, the liberal media has delivered what they call bombshell after bombshell. Well, guess what. Bombshell after bombshell has fizzled out like a wet bottle rocket. But the liberal media keeps on hunting for those witches. They become pathetic as a middle school boy who has a crush on the cheerleader hoping just once she agrees to date him. Liberal media, she ain't that into you.

So instead of beating that Russian dead horse, move on to something worth reporting. The economy is off the charts on fire. The borders are tightening, illegal immigration is way down, and ISIS is shaking in their sandals waiting for another mother of all bombs to be dropped on their -- you know what. Wake up, liberal media. Trump is winning and I for one I'm totally not sick of winning, yet. Kat, are you sick of winning, yet?

TIMPF: I don't know how -- wow. OK. Eric, it's not over. The investigation is still going on. There are things that we haven't talked about.

BOLLING: This one or the other.

TIMPF: They think -- this is the same investigation, Eric. There're things we haven't even talked about on this program, for example like the fact that Jared Kushner's digital operation is under investigation. People in the Pentagon who worked in issues surrounding Russia have notice connections between you people in U.S., who knew where to disseminate voter information, and people in Russia who are during the propaganda. I don't know if that's Trump's people. I don't claim to know.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: Hold on a minute. And they're still investigating, Eric. And they're still investigating, Eric. And you're also really minimizing it by saying it's just some lawyer and some -- they're talking about adoption. This is a person who has Kremlin connections, OK.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: Just because it's not criminal doesn't mean that it's not wrong.

BOLLING: There are constitutional scholars and prosecutors who say you need a crime to occur.

TIMPF: I don't think that I've said that there was a crime. I think when I've said is it's way too early to be shouting victory when investigation is still going on.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: You said we are winning and were going to keep winning.

BOLLING: No, no, I was talking about the economy. I was talking about the borders. I was talking about ISIS being on the verge of defeat. Those are real wins that we don't hear from the mainstream.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think I have something that maybe will satisfy what both of you are saying. What if we did more than one thing at one time. How amazing would that be? What would if we let Robert Mueller and the DOJ do their job and finish completing the investigation, you're talking about, Kat. And at the same time, talk about the domestic and international things that are going well, or maybe not so well in the case of health care, or whatever, but talk about actual American policy concerns as they relate to the American people.

TIMPF: I completely agree.

BOLLING: I'm all for that.

TIMPF: I completely agree with that. I completely agree with that. I want to start talking about health care. I'm just saying nobody on either side should be saying it's over when it's not.

BOLLING: Well, is it ever going to be over, though?

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: The Democrats had start exploding on January 20th. They started chanting impeachment from day one. You have a member of congress today file impeachment charges over what his son had this 20 minute meeting. Come on. I mean, the loss of grip on reality that the Democrats are going through is absolutely stunning.

WILLIAMS: Congressman, let me ask you this, though. If it were just the Democrats and they were all by their lonesome because I think the articles of impeachment is ridiculous, right? The treason -- I think it's ridiculous. But it's not just the Democrats we know this, right? We know that there's a segment, and Eric points them out on a regular basis, of the GOP, that at every opportunity will jump on board and be a part of that chorus as well. And it's that combination of voices, congressman, that is bringing a lot of fuel to that fire.

CHAFFETZ: No. And we had a word behind the scenes in congress. We called them bed weathers, OK. They could not handle taking tough votes. They can't handle the idea that maybe they're getting in front of, you know, supporting something that -- and it's just -- it is very frustrating. Focus on the issues.

NAVARRETTE: In terms of the media, it's not going to go away for several reasons. This is never been about Trump. It's always been about the media. I've been a journalist for 25 years. We love talking about ourselves than anything else. We find ourselves fascinating. And we hate being wrong. We hate missing the big story. I disagree with the congressman. This has not started on January 20th. This started on election night. The minute that Donald Trump.

BOLLING: Election night? How about June 16.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: Not then. Because back then, they liked him, supported him. He was a fellow New Yorker. They never gave him a chance to win. But when he won, it showed us that we missed the big story and we're never going to get over that.

BOLLING: So stay on that for one second. So why in the world -- we heard Comey's memos were the bombshell, we've heard -- I mean, on and on -- we've heard ten different bombshells ended up fizzling out. When is the media.

NAVARRETTE: They always overplay their hand.

BOLLING: . going to get a grip of themselves and start reporting the real news instead of continuing to look for this witch that doesn't show up.

NAVARRETTE: you've got it right Eric. Both the media and Trump are made for each other. They both live in each other's head rent-free. He pays too much attention to what they say about him. He should focus on work. And they pay way too much attention to what he says about them.

TIMPF: And I would love to talk about health care, I think that that's a disaster. I love to talk about the real issues. I'm certainly not saying that this is the smoking gun. And I've never said -- that I've never said I know that this happened, Eric. All I'm saying is, I don't know that it didn't. The investigation is still going on so I'm not going to shout victory.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: A couple of constitutional scholars in here say.

TIMPF: Did I ever say it was illegal?

BOLLING: . the free-speech argument, Trump, Jr. had a right to speak to the Russian lawyer.

TIMPF: I completely agree that looking at information as a commodity would create free-speech concerns. I said that a few days ago.

BOLLING: So why are we hyping this? Why are we saying we really need to sit down.

TIMPF: I think it's because his story changed so much.

WILLIAMS: The denial. The denial. That's the why.

CHAFFETZ: The half-truth, the untruth.

BOLLING: I deny that we should continue this conversation.

(LAUGHTER)

BOLLING: Up next, President Trump's FBI pick on the hot seat facing off with the senate in his confirmation hearing on everything from Russia to leakers. Do not go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIMPF: Chris Wray, President Trump's pick to lead the FBI, getting his confirmation grilling by the senate judiciary committee today. Naturally, senators couldn't help bringing up the Trump, Jr., Russian lawyer controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C>: You're going to be director of the FBI. So here's what I want you to tell every politician. If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, NOMINEE FOR FBI DIRECTOR: To the members of this committee, any threat or effort to interfere with our elections from any nation state, or any non-state actor, is the kind of thing the FBI would want to know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Was that a question from Senator Graham?

TIMPF: Actually, it was a command.

WILLIAMS: So weird.

TIMPF: It was a command. Tell everybody. I don't know why he went that way.

BOLLING: I don't either. Are we trying to confirm a very capable and able FBI director? And congressman can weigh in on this in a second. But I have to tell you, Lindsey Graham -- I mean, what's with the undermining of the president? Will Lindsey Graham stand up as a U.S. senator and say, yes, Donald Trump is -- that the leader of our party, yes or no, instead of throwing these ridiculous, ridiculous questions at the guy we're trying to confirm. I think some Democrats were more capable and able.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: Congressman, I want to ask you how did it feel for you?

CHAFFETZ: Well, Senator Graham is a former opponent of Donald Trump. I'm sure it's still a sore point that he's not the president of the United States. There were a couple big issues that were not addressed. I didn't see all the whole hearing. It went on forever. But the 702, the reauthorization of the FISA court is probably one of the most difficult things for congress to pass and has to pass by the end of the year. We didn't hear anything about facial recognition. Most Americans would be shocked. One out of every two people in this country is in an FBI database right now with facial recognition that they're trying to employ. It's a real scary thing, and probably something that should have been peppered as a question to the FBI director. They missed an opportunity to ask substantive questions.

BOLLING: But they were worry -- Lindsey Graham is really worried about Donald Trump Jr's emails.

CHAFFETZ: Yeah. I mean, it's showmanship.

WILLIAMS: I thought it was really tacky too, and a waste of taxpayers time. This is an important confirmation hearing about a 10-year appointment, by the way, and something that should be a political for him to use it. And normally, I don't have a problem with Senator Graham, but he use this opportunity as a political moment to advance his agenda.

NAVARRETTE: Grandstanding.

WILLIAMS: . grandstanding, that was low class.

NAVARRETTE: Yeah. I think the part of the hearing that could have done without was the sanctimonious rhetoric from Democrats over torture. Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin. You know, they count on us having very short memories, apparently, because Democrats are all for torture when they're in office. And they need to get to the bottom of something, because they don't want to be painted as anti-safety, soft on terror.

WILLIAMS: soft on terror.

NAVARRETTE: And so all those same people went along with these things, and the congressman knows this very well. Democrats try to pretend they're against those sorts of things, but they really aren't.

TIMPF: Right, absolutely. Well, Chris Wray also faced questioning on his potential loyalty to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, D-VT.: From what we've seen from the White House, they may be expecting your loyalty, just as the president did with Director Comey. You told me yesterday there's been no question by anybody in the White House asking you for a pledge of loyalty. Is that correct?

WRAY: That's correct, Senator. My loyalty is to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the mission of the FBI. And no one asked me for any kind of loyalty oath at any point during this process, and I sure as heck didn't offer one.

LEAHY: And I also assume from what you told me yesterday, you would not give one if asked.

WRAY: Correct.

LEAFY: If the president asked you to do something unlawful or unethical, would you say?

WRAY: First, I would try to talk him out of it. And if that failed, I would resign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIMPF: I agree with you all on this. I think we're all in agreement. It was just like a display of pettiness. I don't understand. There's so many more questions I would have asked other than the question that they asked. Especially since -- I thought it was very interesting he also said he hadn't read the emails.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, I mean, this -- these are not long emails, but there are more substantive issues they should have gotten to. It was grandstanding.

I think they know, as Senator Graham knew, that if they threw this out, that would be on the nightly news, and that's what they were after. Instead of asking a candidate, you know, what his real...

BOLLING: Senator Graham has to go up -- he's up for reelection, I think, in 2020.

CHAFFETZ: Yes.

BOLLING: I mean, I spent some time in South Carolina. They're -- the people of South Carolina are very pro-Trump. Very pro-Trump. He's going to have a hard time. He's going to have to change his tone and demeanor going into that election. And he may.

NAVARRETTE: Eric, here's the thing that's interesting about that exchange. You know, if -- with regard to Leahy's questions, the last person went before Congress and said, "If you make me FBI director, I promise to follow the law and the Constitution" was James Comey.

BOLLING: Yes.

NAVARRETTE: This is always supposed to go this way. The person who comes before that is always supposed to be asked that question and answer it just like that. And it's no guarantee that ultimately, they'll do their job the way they're supposed to.

Jim Comey did great damage to the FBI by playing politics and trying to game a presidential election and tried to force, ultimately, through leaks, the appointment of a special counsel.

BOLLING: You know, I didn't hear this. I'm sorry. I didn't hear it, but maybe because it was going on for, like, five or six hours. But was the question ever asked, "If you had some information and you took notes on it, would you be willing to leak it to 'The New York Times'?" I didn't hear that.

TIMPF: I don't know. All right. Well, coming up, climate change hysteria reaches biblical proportions. Is the end of the world coming? Find out next. Hope it ends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Jason Chaffetz and Ruben Navarrette. Let's continue the conversation, because it may be a miracle we're all still here.

Why? A new scientific report says the earth's sixth mass extinction event is already well underway, calling it the biggest such event since an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. So if you're not watching this show from a bunker, you might want to find one and quick.

So let's take a look at the massive devastation currently taking place across the country. Oh, the humanity! How will we ever rebuild? The apes will soon rule the earth.

Wait, hang on. Things are actually fine. We're all fine, which is more than what could be said for that scientific report. It says three quarters of all species on the planets could disappear in the coming centuries because, if there's one thing people can do, it's predicting exactly what will happen centuries from now.

And what do these scientists actually say is driving the so-called mass extinction event? Quote, "human overpopulation and overconsumption by the rich." Of course, it should be -- we should all be ought buying food and ammo or is this the most absurd piece of environmentalist garbage we've seen yet?

Eboni, are you OK? Are you going to run out and buy one of those doomsday bunkers?

WILLIAMS: I think all is good.

BOLLING: Those are pretty cool, though, those bunkers.

WILLIAMS: I've actually seen a couple bunkers when I was in Israel. I saw some very cool bunkers.

But no, I mean, look, I totally think that we can be as -- we should be as responsible as we can be when it comes to our planet, but this type of sensationalism, Eric, it just -- I think it undermines legitimate causes.

TIMPF: I love...

BOLLING: Kat, the sixth mass extinction event well underway.

TIMPF: I love overconsumption. It's one of my favorite things to do. Overconsume. Of all the good things.

Look, the study also said that the main problem or the main reason for it is it's overpopulated. We already have people writing op-eds saying, "Oh, have fewer kids. There's too many people." I'm sorry, but come on. When you start saying something like that, I can't imagine someone having the decision between having or not having a child and saying, "Oh, but the baby's carbon footprint." I mean, that's...

WILLIAMS: Well, not something -- this, Kat -- our generation, millennials, we actually are not having kids very much at all.

TIMPF: Yes, I haven't done it.

WILLIAMS: No, we're 0 for 0.

BOLLING: Rube, do you think there's a chance this has something to do with being able to secure some money for funding of research of overpopulation?

NAVARRETTE: I think there's a chance. I think there's a hint of that. I think that the climate control folks, they developed their own religion around this. I'm interested in the fact that there are so many debates in America, issues we can debate. This is an issue where they won't debate, where there seems to be no debate, where they're trying to cut off the debate. And it has become this kind of religion.

But don't look at me. You know, in 2016, my electoral choices were so bad, between Trump and Clinton, that I liked the bumper sticker that said "Meteor 2016: Let's end it already."

BOLLING: Let's get it over with, right?

NAVARRETTE: If they hadn't kept the meteor out of the debates, they'd have won.

BOLLING: Jason, weigh in on this...

CHAFFETZ: Look...

BOLLING: ... fiction of 100 years down the road.

CHAFFETZ: They can't even tell you what the weather's going to be like on Sunday. So I mean, come on, give me a break. And I've been -- always kind of been in the camp that I thought Al Gore has always been a farce. So that's my starting point.

BOLLING: Didn't he predict this very city was going to be underwater two years ago?

CHAFFETZ: What he's preaching was all about him making money.

TIMPF: I think that there's things we can do, but at the same time I don't think that those things are government regulations that don't necessarily do much good but create a lot of problems of their own.

BOLLING: Yes, it's a big Earth, you know? Us little people on the Earth that tend to be dwarfed by the bigger Earth itself.

Also giving environmentalists heart palpitations today, an iceberg roughly the size of Delaware has broken away from western Antarctica, and the runaway iceberg, which weighs more than 1 trillion tons, is more than 600 feet thick, is running the risk of floating into the area frequented by cruise ships from South America.

Now, Kat, I can wrap my brain around that kind of risk. Get out of my...

TIMPF: It's a little scary. We don't want...

BOLLING: Get out of the way of my cruise ship.

TIMPF: You ever hear the story of the Titanic? It didn't go well.

BOLLING: Didn't end well?

TIMPF: Yes, absolutely.

BOLLING: So, you know, the temperatures vary, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, but they have for...

BOLLING: They rise, they fall. The weather changes.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, I mean, for eons. And that's my whole point. Yes, what we throw into our water, what we throw up in the air, it will have an effect; but throughout eons when there were no people here, the weather was still changing. The earth is moving. It's -- the weather changes every day.

BOLLING: And Eboni, I'm not going to say that the planet may not be warming, but I'm not positive that we can definitely prove that it's humans causing the warming. And that we can do anything about it at this point.

WILLIAMS: Well, nothing is conclusive. I think in terms of what we can do about it, again, just operate in good faith. You know what I'm saying? I personally don't need to see a conclusion to know, don't litter. Like simple stuff.

TIMPF: Don't run garbage...

WILLIAMS: Stuff like that.

TIMPF: Don't throw garbage in the street.

WILLIAMS: Simply because we don't know, to your point, Eric, if it makes things better; but we certainly know that if we -- if we do it, it can make things worse. And we lose nothing by just being responsible.

BOLLING: Now, Ruben, one of the main drivers of methane gas is cow flatulence. You know that. What, are we going to kill off all the cows now? Is that what we're supposed to do?

NAVARRETTE: Yes, I come from farm country in central California. That would not go over well.

WILLIAMS: And I like steaks, so let's not do that.

NAVARRETTE: You like your steak; you like your milk; you like your cheese.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

NAVARRETTE: It makes it hard to do a dairy industry around that. But you know, if you really want to kill the dairy industry, get rid of the cows or get rid of the immigrants who are working on the dairies.

BOLLING: Ooh, Ruben went there, did he?

Final thought?

TIMPF: I was going to say, maybe the dinosaurs would still be here if they'd only seen more Al Gore movies. That's probably the problem. No.

BOLLING: Very good.

TIMPF: We should all be responsible individually.

BOLLING: We all agree on that.

All right. When we return, "Celebrity Justice" on "The Docket." O.J. Simpson prepares for his parole hearing with an unexcited prediction from the D.A. who put him behind bars in the first place. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Time now for "Celebrity Justice."

Next Thursday, O.J. Simpson is set to appear before a Nevada parole board. Simpson is currently serving time behind bars for robbery and kidnapping charges. He was found guilty back in 2008.

Now, at least 4 out of 7 parole board members believe that Simpson is fit for release. He could walk free as early as October 1.

Now Eric, many people feel that O.J. Simpson was ultimately convicted of this and given a pretty severe sentence. He was given 30-some years on this, instead of nine.

BOLLING: I hope he gets out. Yes, I want him to get out, because then he can resume looking for Nicole's real killer. Remember, he said if he wasn't...

WILLIAMS: I see what you did there.

BOLLING: ... he wasn't going to jail, he's instead, I guess he was partying in Orlando nightclubs...

WILLIAMS: Among other things.

BOLLING: ... and shooting up hotel rooms in Vegas.

WILLIAMS: Yes, yes. Ruben, certainly many people feel that the justice that they saw, with him going to jail in 2008 was really, you know, due proper from the killings of Ron and Nicole, although he was found not guilty. So they would not like to see him released, but the D.A. that actually was responsible for him getting convicted predicts that he will be released.

NAVARRETTE: Right. This was way back, back in '94, so I was the host of a radio show in Los Angeles. All O.J. all the time.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yes.

NAVARRETTE: When the story first broke. I think the thing I dread the most is that there's no doubt that when he comes out, he's going to want to restart his career, his fame, his reality shows, his ideas. Remember, some time ago, he was pitching a book idea...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

NAVARRETTE: ... from behind bars.

WILLIAMS: No, he wrote that book, actually, and it was sold, and I think the proceeds went to the family of Ron Goldman.

NAVARRETTE: And it was -- and it was scarily similar...

WILLIAMS: Yes, "If I" -- "If I'd Done It."

NAVARRETTE: Right, exactly.

WILLIAMS: "If I'd Done It."

NAVARRETTE: He'll be back before that cameras before long.

WILLIAMS: He's also 70 years old. And so some people feel like, if we're not kind of assigning this alternative blame here, if we're just focusing on the letter of the law, perhaps nine years on these charges is justice.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, you know, it's -- at the end of the day, it's a really sad American story. I mean, he was an American hero. He had grown up the way he did. He was a football star. And it's kind of sad, at the end of his life here, to see what it turned into. It really is a sad story.

TIMPF: You can't brutally murder. That will do you in.

WILLIAMS: Well, he was found not guilty. I just want to put that out there, for all sakes and purposes.

TIMPF: Right.

WILLIAMS: But it is to that point, Kat; people do feel like, you know, he probably did it. He was found not guilty technically, legally speaking. But he was so silly, to both you and Eric. If I'm acquitted for murder, you all are not going to see me. I'm going to have the lowest profile. Seriously. Instead, O.J. is out here just continuing to promote himself and be public. And then he ends up with these charges. I really didn't feel sorry for him.

TIMPF: Absolutely not.

BOLLING: Karma. They say, what, it's a bitch?

WILLIAMS: Well, somebody -- somebody certainly did say that.

So let's go on to the next story here. Singer Gwen Stefani and concert promoter Live Nation are facing a lawsuit from my hometown, Charlotte, North Carolina. A North Carolina woman is claiming that during a concert back in 2016, a stampede broke out. The pop singer allegedly told her fans to, quote, "Just fill in anywhere you like. Who cares about your lawn chairs? You can get new ones."

The woman suing Stefani claims that this created a rush of concertgoers to the front of the stage, which led to her getting her leg broken. Both Stefani and Live Nation are being sued for negligence. The woman seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages, plus unspecified punitive damages. And I think she's seeking 75 from Gwen and 75 from Live Nation, $150,000. Do you think she will prevail?

CHAFFETZ: Having read, actually, the story and what Gwen Stefani did, I think she's actually probably going to prevail. Because evidently, at the end of that, Gwen Stefani said, "Whoa, I made a mistake. I shouldn't have done that."

And you've got to know, as a performer as how popular as she is and how crazy the fans are. But you know, I don't know if that's a little too much money.

TIMPF: She said move forward. She didn't say, "Recreate the beginning of 'The Lion King.'" I think that there's a huge difference.

I used to -- I never broke a leg, but in high school, I used to go to a lot of punk-rock concerts and be in mosh pits. And I would -- I would get some -- you know, I would get some bruises and I would get banged up a little bit. I would never sue the band.

WILLIAMS: Yes, but I don't know. Broken leg, Ruben. Maybe she feels like this superstar...

NAVARRETTE: Yes.

TIMPF: ... should've known better, I think, is the duty breach equation, of course, that we use legally.

NAVARRETTE: At first glance, I thought it was the weirdest thing, a nuisance suit. But the idea that she called an action, you know, called the fans to do something; and they did it, this might -- she might be in trouble here.

BOLLING: I want to just warn everyone before jumping to conclusion that she's -- she's going to get sued and lose. On the back of that ticket, if you read the back of that ticket, they -- they basically, you sign, you -- by purchasing that ticket, you waive almost all...

CHAFFETZ: Nobody reads the -- do you read the back of a ticket?

WILLIAMS: Bolling reads the back of the ticket.

BOLLING: Think of it this way. The guy, the baseball player, who the bat slips out of his hands, and it hits someone in the stands, you can't sue that ballplayer.

TIMPF: That's an accident.

CHAFFETZ: That's an accident. What she actually calls for the massive crowd to do, and they did exactly what she asked for, I think there's going to be a lot of sympathy.

BOLLING: I bet dinner on this, Jason, that this doesn't go through.

CHAFFETZ: That's good, because I eat at McDonald's. If I lose, I can handle it.

WILLIAMS: I think it's going to settle, right? No way this woman gets a $150,000. But I think Gwen Stefani and Live Nation would be well served to give her -- I don't know, maybe 25, 30, and make it all go away.

So the third case, the mother of ex-husband of Jim Carrey's late girlfriend are accusing the actor of going back on his promise to pay for White's funeral after initially offering to cover the costs. On Monday, they filed an amended complaint in L.A. Superior Court, alleging that Carrey never paid a dime of funeral expenses and reneged on his offer after learning that White had left her family a small amount of money.

Now, a provisional trial date has been set for April 2018. Now, I just talked about settling but Eric, I've got to say, from my lawyer friends...

BOLLING: Just when Jim Carrey couldn't be more despicable and more of a lowlife, this story comes out. For God's sakes, she was with you. You were -- they were seen everywhere together. She committed suicide largely because she said of the way she felt when she was around him. I mean, pay for the funeral. He's loaded.

WILLIAMS: And pretty bad allegations, Congressman, saying that he gave her three STDs. He allegedly supplied her with the drugs that she committed suicide with. Those things we don't know. Surprisingly, this doesn't look like it's going to settle. I used to live in L.A. Many of my attorney friends are still practicing there. Rumor is they're not talking settling. They actually want to see this go to trial, 2018.

CHAFFETZ: I am kind of on the opposite side of Eric on this one. So we're going to have to do two dinners here.

I think, look, he doesn't owe anything financially; and it sounds like these people are being a bit of gold diggers. It's not just the cost...

WILLIAMS: Gold diggers?

CHAFFETZ: Yes. To not just cover the cost of the funeral. They're talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that they're suing and want from this -- from Mr. Carrey. I don't...

WILLIAMS: I'm on the other side, Congressman.

CHAFFETZ: They're going to have to go a long way to figure out that he owes this kind of money to the family.

WILLIAMS: They have a high burden of proof, but if they feel -- if you're the family and you say, "You know what? But for her relationship with Jim Carrey, my daughter would be alive. My estranged wife would be alive."

TIMPF: I agree that that's a dangerous -- a dangerous precedent.

NAVARRETTE: Right. That's going to be the hard part. There's legally obligated, and there's the right thing to do. And this is the right thing to do.

WILLIAMS: There you go.

NAVARRETTE: You ought to do it.

WILLIAMS: That's a beautiful way to put it, Ruben. I agree.

TIMPF: If he wants to. You don't want these stories about the STDs swirling in the media.

BOLLING: That's true.

TIMPF: I mean, come on. Why would he not just do it?

BOLLING: He should -- he should -- he's guilty just for that stupid sitcom he put out. Have you seen it?

TIMPF: No.

NAVARRETTE: Ought to pay for that.

BOLLING: That is the worst hour I've ever seen of television.

WILLIAMS: Well, then for that, he should pay.

When we return, we will "Circle Back" with our specialists, Jason Chaffetz and Ruben Navarrete.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIMPF: Let's "Circle Back" with our specialists, Jason Chaffetz and Ruben Navarrette.

All right. Congressman, question's for you. You could have been in the hearing today, what question would you have asked Chris Wray?

CHAFFETZ: I want to know why the federal government, the FBI, is collecting every face they can in America -- not the people that are in jail, but innocent Americans, suspicionless Americans. Why are they building that database? And what is he going to do about it?

TIMPF: I want -- exactly. Leave my face alone.

BOLLING: How are they doing that?

CHAFFETZ: Well, they've got operating agreements with 18 states. When you go to get your driver's license, guess what happens?

WILLIAMS: They take your picture.

CHAFFETZ: They take that shot. They give it there. And then they're putting up camera networks, and they're capturing your image.

BOLLING: Scary.

WILLIAMS: Can't believe it. Scary indeed.

Let me ask -- well, actually, I was going to ask you this question, Congressman. I know wildlife photography is your thing. What is your most prized photo?

CHAFFETZ: I took this picture of a bald eagle up in Tibble Fork, near our house.

WILLIAMS: Was there a tear in your eye?

CHAFFETZ: It is an unbelievable photo. But no, look, I just love it. If I want to get out and clear my head and go see the big game out west, I love it.

BOLLING: And my question is for Ruben. Ruben, for six years, filling in for "The O'Reilly Factor," I've been calling you Ruben Navarrette. And I find out today from "The Specialists" it's Navarrette-ay.

NAVARRETTE: I've had a cultural injection before the show. I now want to be known as Ruben Navarrette-ay.

BOLLING: You're identifying with...

NAVARRETTE: I'm identifying with that population. I always have. My grandfather came from Mexico during the Mexican Revolution with a lot of other folks before the restrictions on those sorts of things. He was Navarrette-ay. My dad went through the U.S. Army and 37 years as a cop, and he became Navarrette. And I'm going back to Navarrette-ay.

WILLIAMS: (SPEAKING SPANISH)

TIMPF: Navarrette-ay.

NAVARRETTE: Muy bien. Good to see you, my friend.

TIMPF: Watch, I somehow say it wrong right now, still. OK. Thank you to our "Fox News Specialists" today, Jason Chaffetz and Ruben Navarrette?

WILLIAMS: Yay!

TIMPF: Good job?

We think you all for watching. And make sure to follow us on social media @SpecialistsFNC on Twitter and Facebook. Remember, 5 o'clock will never be the same.

"Special Report" is next, and it's amazing. Watch.


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.