As terror grips Europe, what should the US do to stay safe?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," June 6, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling, along with Kat Timpf and Eboni K. Williams. We are "The Fox News Specialists."

Terror on the European continent as France, again, fall victim with a jihadist yelling, this is for Syria, a tax police at the Notre Dame Cathedral. Terror on the Australia continent, a Somali born man killed one person and took one hostage in an apartment building with three police officers injured during the standoff. The gunman had pledged allegiance to ISIS before he was shot dead by police, and the third jihadist in Saturday's London terror is identified as Moroccan born, Youssef Zaghba. Terror every few days around the globe, no coincidence it's just a few days into Ramadan. Can't imagine what the next 18 days might bring. Eboni, every day seems like we're talking about another attack.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Yes. I mean, it's absolutely insane. And then what happened with Paris, earlier this morning, for a second, certainly lots of questions going on there too. I think what's sad to me, Eric, is none of the even seems surprising anymore. It's almost expected at this point. Not to confuse that with comfortable or condoning it, but it's almost expected that this is a way of life.

BOLLING: Kat, every day, every day we're opening the show and talking about either a terror attack that happened today or a couple days ago. And again, Ramadan, ISIS had said find your 72 virgins during Ramadan. We've got 18 more days of this.

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: Right, absolutely. It's gotten to the point where if you ask me to list what's happened in the past month, I would probably miss one. And that's a horrific thing. We should never get used to this. We absolutely should not. We have to get a handle on it. But at the same time, again, keep the civil liberties concerns in mind. But, yeah, there's really nothing to say other than that it's horrific.

BOLLING: Very, very interesting. All right. Let's leave it right there. Let's meet today's specialists. She's a reported for the Wall Street Journal, she covers politics from the United States to Asia and Africa, and hosts weekly segments for Barons, and she specializes in business and politics, Shelby Holliday is here. And he's president of judicial watch, he helped uncovered the Hillary email scandal, and is a New York Times best-selling author, and his specialty is being a government watchdog, and we need more and more of Tom Fitton's, Tom Fitton is here.

And now to follow up on everything developing today, the war on terror must be waged as a real war with a real enemy. The enemy must be named. It's radical Islamic terrorists. It's all hands on deck. See something, say something. Civil libertarians, hold your noses, we can't let this slime creep into the American streets. Surely our lawmakers get this right. They want to fight terror, right? Not lay down and rollover to Jihadist and allow them to take hold here in America, right? Well, let's hear one of those elected officials.


SEN. ANGUS KING, I-MAINE: It's very hard to prevent something like this in a free society. The only way to be fully secure is to lock everybody down, and I don't think any of us want to live in North Korea.


BOLLING: So let's not lock everyone down. Let's not lock down our vetting. Let's not tighten up our security and intel collections. Congratulations, senator. You take the prize for the dumbest comment heard from a lawmaker in a very long time. Now, Kat, you may take umbrage with something I wrote, some of the thing I wrote there, especially the civil liberties.

TIMPF: Yeah. I really don't like the idea that civil libertarians want terrorism -- be have a different view on how to protect against it, and what does and does not work in terms of protecting against it. You can't keep everybody really perfectly safe in a free society. That is true. That absolutely is true.

BOLLING: Shelby, your thoughts on what the independent senator had to say about how we fight terror, that we need to be just like relax, everything is going to be OK.

SHELBY HOLLIDAY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I don't think he's wrong but I think coming from a lawmaker, coming from an elected official, you want to hear more resolve, you want to hear more of a strength position. However, he's acknowledging what Kat said is absolutely right. It's impossible to prevent. These lone wolves though in many cases are known wolves, they're known to intelligence, and that's where we have major problems. If these guys are on the radar of U.S. intel, U.K. intel, they're flagged, how are they able to then commit acts of terror?

BOLLING: I don't know. Eboni, you know, this is a very important comment. We talk about yesterday that the jihadists -- one of the jihadist who pulled off the attack in London was on a documentary called, the jihadist next-door, and was on the watch list.

WILLIAMS: Literally. And also, your piece that you say, see something, say something, well, sometimes people aren't seeing something, they are saying something and nothing is being done about it. So that's a different issue, one that doesn't come close to breaching upon civil liberties. This is where we can ramp up as Mike and Aaron were both talking about yesterday on the show, ramping up our ability to identify these people and get them and capture them, and then keep a safe.

BOLLING: All right, let's turn to our judicial watch guy, the guy who watches over the government. Tell us how safe, how good are they at vetting the people coming into this country.

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH PRESIDENT: Well, there is no vetting of people coming into this country, practically speaking. The president just implemented a new security measure. They ask a few more questions. But his instincts and the tweets are right that we need to broaden the list of countries of which we're asking questions of people coming in. We're not asking them, for instance, are you a believer in Islamic supremacism. That's a sort of basic information we need to know. Now they could lie, but at least we're on record of knowing what they're coming in here for. And if they come in here and begin agitating and begin doing the abdication of violence, we have them on record as telling as otherwise and you throw them out.

BOLLING: Tom, your group specifically makes a lot of foyer requests. It means, you go to the government and say we as a people want to know what the government is saying, and doing on paper we want to read some of these things. Talk to us about how much we don't know about some of the people coming into the country.

FITTON: Well, you know, we know more than we want to let on. You know, we ask, for instance, remember the Orlando shooting, we asked for documents from local law enforcement there. They asked the FBI about Omar Mateen, and the FBI told them he was, quote, not a terrorist, with the emphasis on the word, not. FBI Director Mueller, his FBI were telling his people don't focus on Islamic extremism. Try not to mention.

BOLLING: Why is that? Why?

FITTON: Because you have this politically correct attitude in dealing with the threat we face. And it's uncomfortable because it means you have to focus on people who believe in something that is seemingly religious. But in fact it's a world view that's political that wants to overthrow our country and our system with violence or through other more severe means.

WILLIAMS: Isn't it also true in the case of Omar Mateen, he was known at some point, right? There were eyes on him. There was an issue around him. And we watched him for a very long time. I forget, I think maybe over ten months and ultimately he was let go. So that's a separate issue. So how do we address that particular issue?

FITTON: Well, if necessary, we've got to broaden the loss to allow for the picking up of people like this who are advocating violence or may be advocating violence or part of this subversive movement. I wish they were terrorists that we didn't know about. Almost every one of them we know about.

HOLLIDAY: Omar Mateen was a American citizen. And much like the terrorists in London, as atrocious as their acts were, Donald Trump's travel ban would never prevented any of them from coming to the U.S. One of them was a British citizen. You can't prevent them from.

BOLLING: No, Shelby, -- ISIS says.

HOLLIDAY: It's a multi.

BOLLING: . when ISIS says -- it directs jihadists if you want to do, if you want to follow what we want you to do, get into the American system through the refugee program. They instructed their people to do this. So I think it's important that, yes, see something, say something, and there's going to be the ones that are homegrown, but you've got to at least lock up the borders and make sure -- in my opinion. Hang in there one second. I'll let you comment on this. Because if you watched the show yesterday, one of our specialists, Aaron Cohen, hit the nail on the head about the type of crackdown we need to do to stop the terror threat here.


AARON COHEN: If I was leading this operation, I want it to rain warrants, terrorist warrants, so I can kick down every door of every possible terrorist, friend of a terrorist, family member of a terrorist. In Israel, if you cohorted with a terrorist or you had any knowledge of a terrorist attack, we're going to destroy your house. The reason why is because you don't deserve to even live here if you have any knowledge of a potential terror attack.


BOLLING: Shelby, that's where you change the debate, change the dialogue, change the pc culture so that you can.

HOLLIDAY: I will also say, big challenge here is resources. The FBI does not have the resources to put dozens of guys on one suspect who's saying crazy things online. At the end of the day, it all comes down to money and personnel, and the FBI has a hiring freeze.


WILLIAMS: Real quick, Kat, about what Aaron said. It sounds really hawkish, Eric, and people get really excited. Aaron is exactly right. It's really not even an extreme thing he's talking about. You know why, I wish it would rain warrants. Well, guess what, in most of these cases that we're talking about here there's a required for a warrant, articulable suspicion of criminal activity of foot. So when you got that in place, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a warrant. I don't even think someone with civil liberties concern may have a problem with that, right?

TIMPF: Right. That's absolutely the point. Warrants, that's fine. What's missing in this discussion which can create fear, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be afraid of terrorism, obviously, you should. But we are already doing a better job in this country than they're doing in Europe. Our vetting process is already better. It's chaos, the vetting process over in Europe. And also, Muslims do assimilate better to this society than over here. Hold on a minute, Eric. Whenever I say that, people go bananas on me on the internet. So you're saying every single Muslim has integrated perhaps perfectly in a society. Well, here's this one guy, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's an absolute fact. It is a fact that they integrate better here. So it's not completely fair to say.


BOLLING: Here's the point though, we're different and we still are different. But you understand that Donald Trump was elected president.


BOLLING: If Hillary Clinton was elected president, she had planned for four times the amount of refugees to come in to the country. We let 116,000 in last year, 116,000, right. She was looking for 400,000 or 500,000. Tom, are we going to be safe if we let 400,000 or 500,000 refugees come in to America?

FITTON: No, and the Obama administration admitted the vetting process was susceptible for being gain by the terrorists. And all President Trump wanted to do was put a pause on the refugee program, so we make sure that the vetting system is something that will keep us safe and secure. That's why he's angry because he knows these bad guys are out there and there's no practical way of stopping them. In fact, they have a pathway in thanks to these recent court rulings and the lack of any secure vetting system to keep them from coming. We outsource the vetting to the United Nation and it's actually moving along faster than they promise it would. That's a recipe for security (INAUDIBLE)

BOLLING: So let me address Eboni's concern as well. I understand what you're saying, get a warrant, go through the legal system. Donald Trump is trying to keep the place safe by executive order, and we have two circuits who are saying no, not so fast, but all he's trying to do is make the place safer. It's not as easy as one might think to do it Aaron Cohen suggested let it rain warrants.

WILLIAMS: I'm not saying it's easy, Eric, but it can be done. In many times it is done. Here's the issue, Tom lay out a perfect argument, you lay out a perfect argument is to why President Trump's ban should be permitted to go through, if only he would get out of his own way. And I'm going to stick by this, Eric, because unfortunately the president's own words are what is holding up his ban.

TIMPF: And not just during the campaign, after the campaign, either him calling it a ban, we need a stronger ban.


TIMPF: It's a ban.

HOLLIDAY: When you talk to legal experts they will say, you know, candidates a lot of stuff on the campaign trail. They can get a little crazy. They played to extremes. But now that he's put this on the record as president.

BOLLING: It's not a Muslim ban. Again, we can't ban people because of race or religion, but we can ban them, and we have in the past many times, over origin.


HOLLIDAY: President Trump wanted to put a 90 day pause on travel. Well, had his ban been implemented and executed, we'd be at the end of 90 days and nothing's happened, so has that hurt his case legally?

BOLLING: Do we not get the mayor of London who said Trump is not welcome here. Well, he's just the mayor of London. I guess if Trump is not welcome in London -- he's also talking to the 50 percent of Americans who may be traveling to England or throughout Europe -- that maybe travelling throughout Europe, you want not those as well. We're going to leave it right there. The U.S. back defensive to take the ISIS's capital of Raqqa, now underway. Would it success land a knockout blow to the terror group? And this, very important news, ABC News reporting that James Comey will stop short of saying President Trump obstructed justice when he faces the senate on Thursday. You won't want to miss this. We're going to break it all down in a few minutes.


WILLIAMS: The U.S. backed offensive to take Raqqa, the capital of ISIS's self-declared caliphate, is finally underway. Syrian, Kurdish, and Arab rebel forces are now reportedly fighting the breakthrough in the cities east, with ISIS launching devastating attacks across the globe in recent weeks. But will this battle marked a decisive turning point against the terror group? Tom, I'll start with you. We opened the show talking about how every single day now it seems to be something worse and worse and worse coming from this terror threat. So we've had to do something different. Do you think this is the difference that needs to be made?

FITTON: Well, this is a big remaining hold out for ISIS. And obviously, if we knocked them out there that would be significant. But the question is, who's the, we? I mean, do we really know who were supporting here. It's mostly Kurdish, but you have these other groups involved. And the whole problem with that confrontation there is we don't know whose side we're on, if they're good guys or bad guys. We pretend to know but we really don't because I don't think many of our leadership understand the nature of the battle there in the Middle East, where you've got one group of terrorists who wants to see us destroyed, battling another group of terrorists who wants to see us destroyed, and we're picking sides. And I hope we're on the right side here. ISIS is a menace, but it's only one flavor of the month when it comes to Islamic extremists who wants to kill us.

TIMPF: You're absolutely right. And that's what makes this different than any other war where the enemy is much more clearly defined. Just like you said, there will be people who both hate us fighting each other. We pick one or we try to take out this leader and another group takes control, it's much more complicated than that.

WILLIAMS: That's why, Eric -- and so, conventional wisdom would tell people the enemy of my enemy is my friend and vice versa. But I don't know.

BOLLING: We got burned in Syria. We got burned by backing what we thought were the anti-Assad rebels ended up being a third faction, which ended up evolving into a form of ISIS. And there are pictures with -- I think they're legit, with Senator McCain standing with someone who he thought was a true rebel but ended up being an ISIS fighter. Let me explain something about Raqqa though. For about five years now, we've known Raqqa was not only the headquarters of ISIS but also their training ground. For five years, we've known this. Why haven't we gone and leveled Raqqa? Here's the pushback, well, there's a lot of innocent people in Raqqa. Well, you give them three months. If you're innocent and you're not a supporter of ISIS, get out of Raqqa. Sorry, just get out. And if you're still there in three months, we're going to make that place a parking lot and there's going to be collateral damage.

TIMPF: Wouldn't the bad guys also know?

HOLLIDAY: Washington Journal reported they've been preparing, ISIS has been preparing for this battle for a year. They're lining the city with explosives. ISIS is known to trap civilians into cities when they know there will be a battle, so it's tough to get them out. I will say there's some glimmers of hope, if you will, in this Raqqa battle. Not only are we squeezing one of their last stronghold but we've seen with these attacks. They tell their supporters, their sympathizer, to go out and commit lone wolf attacks because they're getting squeeze in the homeland. Well, they're getting slower and slower at responding and taking credit for these attacks. Their communications have been completely disheveled. They're slow to respond.

BOLLING: So what's different this time, Shelby?

HOLLIDAY: A lot of them have been taken off the battlefield.

BOLLING: OK, my point is, what are we waiting for? I mean, why is this not been done years ago, months ago?

HOLLIDAY: Well, you have to do it tactically. And I think the U.S. is making a statement by backing forces rather than going in as American forces.

WILLIAMS: OK. Guys, we've got one more to get to, President Trump now jumping into a dispute, threatening the coalition against ISIS. Now he's taking credit today for pushing seven Arab states to suddenly cut off diplomatic ties with the country of Qatar. That's a critical U.S. military partners which have been accused of supporting terror groups tied to Iran. So a Further complicating this, kind of going where you guys are picking up. I want to go back to something Eric said, though. This issue of civilian casualties because it's delicate and it's sensitive and people really get in their feelings about it, and understandingly so, you're right at some point, Shelby. At some point is, is that just the cost of keeping us safe and saving.

HOLLIDAY: Well, if you talk to security experts, they say there're two big issues that non-western societies have with how we handle terrorism, and one of them is that we allow free speech. So we allow people here to say anything they want about Muslims, about Muslim majority countries, about Muslim communities. That's part of living in a democracy. That's defensible. But on the other hand, when you are in these war zones and you are killing civilians with drones and bombs, that's a lot less defensible and that's something that.

FITTON: We're not targeting civilians, though. We're not targeting civilians. And the enemies will pretend that we're targeting civilians, but the facts are we're targeting the bad guys and sometimes mistakes were made. No one is doing it intentionally.

TIMPF: To be fair, though, if you're a dead civilian, you don't really care whether you're dead on purpose or not.

FITTON: So we shouldn't bomb anyone because there's a danger of accidentally hurting an innocent? We have to defend ourselves. And this is part of self-defense is killing the terrorists. And sometimes we use these allies to go after them. And my concern is we don't know who the allies are. You know, we're complaining about Qatar being associated with the Iranians, we've been playing footsie with the Iranians in the Syrian conflict for year now.

WILLIAMS: Four years. Four years.

BOLLING: Well, we've had been, and maybe less so now in the last five months.

FITTON: Probably more so than we want to be, even now.

BOLLING: Don't disagree with that.

FITTON: Really troubling.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's the point. And I'll get to final note on this, Kat, I'd like your take, you know, because the civilian issue is big. Even President Obama at this week kind of making some news in some circles around people criticizing him for the number of civilian deaths that came under his national leadership. Is it ever justified?

TIMPF: It should always be a consideration. The fact that they're not our people doesn't mean they're not people. And a lot of the conflicts that we've gotten in -- we've gotten in to for no reason. It's not like it's not understandable why people would be hesitant to want to get more and more involved in foreign conflicts.


TIMPF: And they will. This attack, they absolutely will use as a recruiting tool.

BOLLING: No one here is suggesting we just indiscriminately bomb places that we think are ISIS strongholds. We're talking about the headquarters of ISIS, self-proclaimed headquarters of the caliphate and the training ground of ISIS fighters.

WILLIAMS: And give them an opportunity to get out and hopefully, to your point, they do. Up next, James Comey set to face off on Thursday. But now, ABC News is reporting that he will stop short from saying that President Trump tried to stop the Mike Flynn probe. Stay with us.


TIMPF: We're just two days away from James Comey's testimony to the senate intel committee, and ABC News is out with a potential game changing report this afternoon. It says that Comey has told associates he will not accuse the president of obstructing justice in the Michael Flynn probe. The report cites a source familiar with Comey's thinking. And Charles Krauthammer has laid out why that may be the case.


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: If it were obstruction, then he is indicting himself.


KRAUTHAMMER: . or not making a statement, for not bringing it out in the open. So he can't say its obstruction, which is what everybody who wants to see Trump destroyed is waiting to hear. So what we will hear is something navigating in between and saying, well, it wasn't really pressure. He was speaking on behalf of an associate, a friend. It could be interpreted in various ways. That's what I think is going to happen, and that's why I think it's going to be a bust.


BOLLING: Explain a little bit further. Here's why -- and Charles is 100 percent right on this, 18 U.S. code number 4 talks about if you're a federal authority and you know of a felony and you don't report the felony, and here's the code right here, miss in-prison of a felony in the federal system is a felony punishable by a fine of up to three years in prison. So what he's basically, and Charles is right, that if he did say I knew that Trump obstructed justice, and under oath, whatever a month or two later I didn't report this felony, he would be indicting himself to open himself to.

WILLIAMS: And Eric, to your credit.

BOLLING: . prison time.

WILLIAMS: . I mean, you said that the day this kind of all broke. You know, before we've got the statute book out. You said, you know what, if indeed that's what he saying now, he's got a serious problem on his hand because he testified to something very different than that a couple months back. And also, why didn't you say anything when it happened? That's a huge credibility question.

HOLLIDAY: Eboni knows this, to obstruct justice requires intent. And I don't know if James Comey could tell Donald Trump's intent when Trump said that. Maybe he was joking. Maybe he was.

WILLIAMS: Being suggestive.

HOLLIDAY: Yeah. I mean, Donald Trump is certainly there to shake up Washington, and he says whatever is on top of his mind, and it's very hard to say I know exactly what you intended to say when you said that. And so maybe that's why James Comey -- I don't think it's possible for James Comey to come out and say he obstructed justice.

TIMPF: Here's the thing though, do you think that's going to change anybody's mind?

FITTON: This is where we're talking about Democratic talking point here. I mean, the headline is President Trump is president, and he's allowed to talk to the people who work for him, including the FBI director who answers to him. He's the top guy when it comes to making prosecutable decisions. It may make the people uncomfortable, but he is allowed to talk about what his views are.

WILLIAMS: Wait, what was that you just said?

FITTON: He is the top guy when it comes to making prosecutorial decisions.

WILLIAMS: President Trump?

FITTON: He could have told...

WILLIAMS: No, he's not.

FITTON: He could have told the FBI director and the Justice Department, "Don't pursue this issue."

WILLIAMS: No, actually, he can't.

FITTON: I think it's a waste of prosecutorial resources.

TIMPF: Not if it -- not if it's an investigation into him.

WILLIAMS: No, he can't. No president can.

FITTON: He can.

WILLIAMS: No, he cannot.

FITTON: He can.

WILLIAMS: He really cannot.

FITTON: He is -- he's running the -- he's running the government. They answer to him. Now, if they don't want to, they can resign. They can object. He can be impeached if he does it corruptly. But we're paying him to make these types of decisions. This is all a lot of noise.

WILLIAMS: He doesn't run the Justice Department, though. Right?


WILLIAMS: He doesn't run the Justice Department.

FITTON: He does.

WILLIAMS: No, he doesn't. I mean, he doesn't.

FITTON: Sure, he does. The attorney general reports to the president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: But the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

FITTON: That's right. And he could direct the attorney general, "Don't waste your time on the Flynn prosecution."

WILLIAMS: Well, my goodness. I guess I wouldn't like a world like that.

FITTON: And it's not obstruction of justice.

BOLLING: It happened, though. President Obama was -- how many times -- listen, do you think it was coincidental that Bill Clinton boarded Loretta Lynch's airplane on that tarmac in Arizona? Or do you think -- is there at least a chance that Obama said, "You know what? Why don't you meet with Clinton? You two are going to be in Arizona."

TIMPF: Eric, this is what -- Eric, this is what I don't understand. So you're saying there's a chance when it comes to Lynch, but there's no chance when it comes to Russia.

BOLLING: I'm saying that Tom is right that the president appoints an attorney general. The attorney general still works for the president.

WILLIAMS: The attorney general works for the American people. You have to get that right.

BOLLING: No -- they all work for the American people.

FITTON: No one voted for the attorney general.


BOLLING: However, if the president points to the attorney general, and Tom is right, if he does -- in the president, even the president does something that's corrupt, the attorney general can bring charges. And the Congress can impeach. That's the way this works.

HOLLIDAY: That's an important point, because what the president can do...

BOLLING: Hold on, hold on. The deputy attorney general is independent from the president. He's not.

HOLLIDAY: The FBI director is, but the FBI director can be fired by the president. However, that is becoming a huge problem for President Trump. Because people look at the firing of Comey as red flag. That's why we are where we are. That's why we have a special prosecutor. That's why we're turning this into must-see television on Thursday, because people can't stop talking about the firing of James Comey and everything that led up to it.

WILLIAMS: Tom, I want to be really respectful to you, but I don't want anybody watching this show to walk away thinking that any president -- not Barack Obama, not Donald J. Trump, not Abe Lincoln -- can decide who is prosecuted in this country. That is not true.

FITTON: He can direct the attorney general to prosecute people or investigate and then prosecute. Obviously, the attorney general has obligations to follow the law and not do anything inappropriate.

WILLIAMS: Right, right.

FITTON: But the president can have a say.

WILLIAMS: Well, he can have a say.

FITTON: And this is what he was doing. He was expressing concern that the Flynn investigation was going nowhere, and they should give him a break.

WILLIAMS: I don't think...

TIMPF: Nobody knows that.

FITTON: Now, the FBI director didn't take it anything other than, evidently, as his opinion.

WILLIAMS: Tom, for the record, I don't think President Trump obstructed justice, first of all. That's a legal conclusion that Jim Comey is not in the position to make. I just want to be clear.

BOLLING: Can I ask Kat? Kat, so on Thursday morning, 10:30, whatever time Comey is going to take the stand, raise his right hand, he's not going to say that Trump obstructed justice. He's not going to say there's any collusion between the Trump Organization and Russia to -- to affect the election outcome. He's not even going to say there's any evidence that Russia actually affected the outcome of the election.

Can we move on? Is it time now to say OK?

TIMPF: Not until it's complete. We haven't heard from Flynn. Flynn just submitted a whole bunch of new documents. We also don't even know what Comey said yet. We just should just wait until this is done.

The best thing that can happen for Trump, if it's as you're predicting, there's nothing. I'm saying that I don't know yet. People still have questions. And if it were something that the left was doing, I think that you would have questions, too.

HOLLIDAY: One other thing. ABC is reporting that Comey will counter the fact that he -- President Trump is saying Comey told him three times he was not under investigation. If Comey disputes that tomorrow, Thursday -- losing my days here -- that will be big news. And Eric, you saw that the market reacted severely last time Comey testified. So this could be a big day not just politically but also in terms of the market.

BOLLING: Well, you know what we're missing also? Tomorrow there are four intel heads that are going to testify, as well, under oath. We're getting lost on waiting to see on Thursday, what Comey is going to say. I think there's going to be a lot of news coming out of tomorrow's testimony.

FITTON: I encourage President Trump to release all the information so we find out what went on with Obama spying on him. Take the wind out of the sail out of a lot of these congressional ridiculous hearings.

HOLLIDAY: Should he release his taxes, as well?

FITTON: Another one. I would encourage him to do so.

HOLLIDAY: Might be helpful.


TIMPF: Me, too. All right. Well, pressure is growing on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the Trump travel ban case. Why its outcome could be hanging in the balance, right after this.


WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Shelby Holliday and Tom Fitton. Let's continue our conversation.

Calls are growing louder for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the Trump travel ban case. Last July, in an interview with The New York Times, Justice Ginsburg said this, quote: "I can't imagine what the country would be like with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the courts, it could be -- well, I don't even want to contemplate that."

Those remarks have critics claiming she would let her personal bias against him tilt her decision on the travel ban.

Now, I'd like to point out that our very own Gregg Jarrett has a piece now on, talking about why he feels she should recuse herself. And I predicted, Eric, that this would be a problem for the justice when she came out and spoke politically...


WILLIAMS: ... about the election. And here it -- here it is, biting her in the behind.

BOLLING: You did. You mentioned it, and a lot of jaws dropped when she did that, as well. Because now, I mean, look, as you well know, the only way that she's going to be able to be taken off this case is if she recused yourself. She can't be told to get off.

But now, when she did that, didn't she open yourself up to judicial activism, judicial bias on everything that she decides that is a very far- right, far-left debate, like this, for one? Trump travel ban, it's got his name on it. She's already said, "I don't trust him. I don't like him." Isn't it biased already?

TIMPF: Obviously, but she didn't think she'd ever really be in this position, which is why she said it. Let's all be honest.

BOLLING: No one thought he was going to win?

TIMPF: Nobody thought he was going to win. Or she wouldn't have said it.

WILLIAMS: Crazy, yes.

TIMPF: Nobody thought. I didn't think. Well, maybe you did. There was, like, a couple people at this network that predicted it. I wasn't one of them. Don't -- she certainly clearly didn't think so or she wouldn't have said that.

WILLIAMS: There were only two candidates, though, Kat. At some point, even if you thought Trump was a long shot, certainly, it's possible.

TIMPF: Bad move on her part, but that's clearly why she said it.

Now, the thing is people love her. Right? She's a pop culture icon. She is. They call her RBG, and the kids walk around in Brooklyn with, like, the little shirts where she looks like "Notorious B.I.G." And "Oh, she's so cool. Look at me and my cool shirt." So if she has to recuse herself - - she's very, very popular.

But I don't see any defense of her staying on when she's already shown she's impartial [SIC].

BOLLING: Do you? Do you?

WILLIAMS: Let me say this -- yes, of course. I think she has a serious problem here, let me be clear. But here's what her argument, I think, will be, Shelby: "Well, I did say that. I did feel that way. I still don't like Donald Trump, but I am such a Supreme Court justice that I can elevate and lift myself above my own partisan politics and still remain fair and impartial."

HOLLIDAY: Yes, I think she could argue that. And I think, once you become a Supreme Court justice, you get there because people trust your impartial decision making. But I do think those statements undermined the trust we have.

BOLLING: Don't go anywhere. Don't go anywhere, co-host.

HOLLIDAY: And Eboni brought this up.

BOLLING: I've got -- I've got to call on my girl here.

WILLIAMS: Here we go.

BOLLING: But Eboni...

WILLIAMS: Bring it, Bolling.

BOLLING: ... if Donald Trump -- and Kat -- if Donald Trump said something as a candidate, and you want told him to that standard with the executive order on immigration on the travel ban, that he said when he was a candidate, aren't we not saying the exact same thing about Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

TIMPF: Look at me, I'm being inconsistent.

WILLIAMS: Let me answer this.

BOLLING: You are.

WILLIAMS: If it were up to me and I got to make a decision, I would take her off the case. I would.

BOLLING: So is Eboni Wilson -- Williams recommending that Ruth Bader steps down?

WILLIAMS: I'm recommending she step down.

FITTON: By her recusing herself, it doesn't mean, "Hey, I'm saying I'm biased." It means, "Look, I've said these things in the past, and I understand as a judge, I can do -- justice, I can put it aside and decide the case independently. But I recognize if I were to participate in this, people would think that the system is rigged and that I'm biased. And I don't want to undermine the judiciary. I don't want to undermine the Supreme Court. For -- so for the sake of the rule of law, I'm going to step back, even though I know I can decide the case fairly."

Frankly, I don't think she could decide the case fairly. But you know, we do presume they're going to be honest and ethical up there. Otherwise, we can't let them be there. But given what she said, I would caution her...

WILLIAMS: I agree with Tom.

FITTON: ... that she step back, just for the sake of the court.

WILLIAMS: I think that would be a very classy move on her part.

HOLLIDAY: I have a question for you guys, though. When President Trump attacks the courts, the judiciary, when he attacks, as he just did with the travel ban, courts for being slow and political. Does that make it tough or impossible for justices to be impartial, because they're already being...

WILLIAMS: No, no, because different -- I'm going to defend President Trump here. He doesn't have a presumption of impartiality. He really doesn't. And he certainly didn't run that way. We don't elect presidents for their ability to be fair and impartial, necessarily.

But justices, and particularly the Supreme Court, the high court, the almighty highest court of the land is supposed to be apolitical.

TIMPF: And it's supposed to be hard to work there.

WILLIAMS: Yes. But no, I think she really stepped in it, Eric. I really do. I think I said it at the time. And this was going to always come back to haunt her.

BOLLING: The difference she did, versus what Justice Scalia would do as a conservative justice, he would talk about ideology. He would talk about "I believe in this or that." She went one step further and pointed at Donald Trump specifically, the man, not -- not his policies.

WILLIAMS: Right, not conservatives.

BOLLING: And therein lies one opportunity for her to say, "You know what? In the -- in the hat tip to impartiality, I will step down."

HOLLIDAY: Which also makes it tough for her. Because if she recuses herself from this one case, that sets a precedent for other cases.

WILLIAMS: Yes, and...

BOLLING: One can only hope. I have a better idea. I have a better idea. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know what? It's time to retire. You have a long life to go relax and hang out in Florida somewhere.

WILLIAMS: She's a little late for that, Eric.

Media bias has no bounds. One of the country's biggest news organizations now officially claiming that President Trump can't be trusted. Stay with us.


BOLLING: Media bias against President Trump has run wild in the days since the London terror attack, with the president's blunt reactions on Twitter provoking widespread hysteria in the press. The president hit back on Twitter today, writing, quote: "The fake mainstream media is working so hard trying to get me not to use social media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out."

Helping prove his point, a report from the Associated Press about his response to London, saying, quote, "President Donald Trump can't be counted on to give accurate information to Americans when violent acts are unfolding abroad."

The media isn't even attempting to hide its disdain anymore. And Tom, we saw that with, well, the mainstream media also doing it, but we saw that with the mayor of London saying, "Hey, Donald Trump, you're not welcome here."

FITTON: You see this media taking itself -- they obviously don't think the Democrats are doing a good job, so they're going to be the opposition party to President Trump.

Everything he says and does is met with derision and opposition by the media. They disagree with everything, and everything is an argument. He says something, there's an argument. There's always someone trying to catch him, suggesting he said something wrong.

He got something wrong about the middle (ph) of the attack. Like everyone thought, it wasn't a terrorist attack. And he tweeted out that it might have been a terrorist attack. Or it was...

TIMPF: He said it was a terrorist attack in his speech, even though it wasn't.

FITTON: And he was wrong. So? He was wrong.

BOLLING: Let me...

FITTON: What's the big deal? But he's also right fundamentally on the issue of terrorism.

TIMPF: Come on.

BOLLING: Let's talk about this for a second. Let's stay on mainstream...

TIMPF: Come on. You can't -- so you're saying that -- so you're saying. No. What does it matter? Are you saying that he deserves no blame whatsoever in terms of people saying he can't be trusted to report accurately on terror when he hasn't accurately reported on terror as of a week ago?

FITTON: Look, he said -- conveying media links. And then he's being attacked for conveying media links.

TIMPF: Answer my question. Answer my question. So he deserves no blame for someone saying you can't trust him on how to report about terror when he himself has inaccurately reported about terror? He deserves no blame?

FITTON: He has made one mistake reporting about a terrorist attack that seemed like a terrorist attack for the idea that the president of the United States therefore can't be trusted on any reporting.

TIMPF: I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

FITTON: Or confirmation of terrorist activities. Not true.

TIMPF: I'm not saying he can never be trusted. I'm just saying so you're saying he deserves no blame?

FITTON: Your attention to the question on that...


HOLLIDAY: He did not get ahead of the Time Square. I will say he did not tweet about the Times Square car crash. That looked like it could be terrorism. He didn't say anything. That was an incident in the U.S. I think that's more important than...


BOLLING: What's the big deal that, if one time he called something a terror attack that happened not to be? I mean, in the meantime, he reaches out, when he tweets or hits social media, 110 million people get the message.

WILLIAMS: I will say this. I really like the Associated Press. It's one of the few, what I think, remaining trusted news sources. I actually don't like that they did this. I don't like that they -- they can have that opinion. He was wrong. I'll answer your question, Kat. I do think the president is to blame for some of this presumption. But I think to come out and say it, uniformly, that he cannot at all be trusted on any of these issues relating to terror, is -- is too broad...

BOLLING: Should we -- should we hold the AP at the same level, the same standard, that if they make a mistake...

WILLIAMS: That's what I'm saying.

BOLLING: ... that they will not -- ever to be trusted again?

WILLIAMS: They are one of the last standing perceived to be objective news outlets. This is too strong and broad and blanketed of a statement.

TIMPF: I agree that it's too strong and broad and blanketed, but I think it's also too strong and broad and blanketed to say that he deserves no blame for this reputation whatsoever, when he does.

BOLLING: Reputation at -- I mean, he made a mistake. He made a mistake in a tweet.

TIMPF: He did make a mistake. He made a mistake in the speech.

BOLLING: He didn't drop a bomb somewhere.

TIMPF: I'm not saying that he did. I never said that he did. I mean, well, he did. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Also, if you -- when you talk about London, when he said that the mayor said that there was no reason for alarm one when, really, what he was referring to was the police -- the police presence.

Shelby, as you pointed out there's times when he's done a great job of waiting and seeing. There's times when he hasn't. I think that the times when he hasn't could give someone pause. I also completely agree that to say that means he can never be trusted is asinine.


HOLLIDAY: And luckily, we haven't had anything happen in the U.S., you know, God forbid.

WILLIAMS: Thank God.

HOLLIDAY: But if and when, I think -- I would hope he could be trusted. I would hope Americans can look to the president.

FITTON: Come on.

HOLLIDAY: I also will say, though, I've been talking to a lot of Trump supporters recently, just to get their temperature, see what they're thinking, and they cannot stand that the media keeps talking about President Trump's tweets. They think it's overblown. They think, you know, he's always tweeted.

FITTON: Compare and contrast this honest mistake with the mendacious lies of the Obama gang about Benghazi, when they lied about a terrorist attack.

TIMPF: Why do you have to compare it to Benghazi? There's nothing relevant.

FITTON: An honest mistake versus knowing lies.

TIMPF: Obviously, knowing lies is worse than a honest mistake.

FITTON: Obviously.

WILLIAMS: Tom, what do you mean, Obama's gang?

HOLLIDAY: I think our president should be held to a higher level than both of that.

FITTON: Hillary Clinton, Obama, Susan Rice. The gang.

BOLLING: Susan Rice, who went out and...

WILLIAMS: The gang?

BOLLING: ... talked about it on five separate talk shows.

WILLIAMS: I resent that. It seems to have a racial connotation. I'm going to call you out on that.

BOLLING: All right. We're going to settle it down a little bit in the break. When we come right back, we're going to "Circle Back" with our specialists, Shelby Holliday and Tom Fitton. Don't go away.


TIMPF: Time to "Circle Back" with our specialists, Shelby Holliday and Tom Fitton.

Tom, I wanted to ask you this question. What did you think of the leaks and the rest and all that happened today?

FITTON: You know, 4.5 million people have security clearances, and it's no surprise that someone like Reality Winner -- we went to that.

TIMPF: Reality leaks.

FITTON: It's a serious issue. Too many people have access to this sensitive information. And this casual approach to leaking classified information just before you hate -- because you hate Trump can be used to justify a lot of lawlessness that can put our national security at risk.

BOLLING: How did she get security clearance, classified security clearance, when she's tweeting about standing with Iran if we ever went to war with them?

FITTON: Four -- how do you track 4.5 million people's security clearances?

BOLLING: I don't know. Better than we're doing now?

FITTON: It's an absurd process. They barely can figure out the names and addresses of the people who have security clearances, let alone investigate their social media.

TIMPF: The leaks don't even implicate Trump also. Great job on that one.

WILLIAMS: OK, I'm going to lighten it up just a little bit here. It's a bit of a heavy day with all our terror news. It's being reported that less American teenagers are working summer jobs. So in the spirit of that, Shelby, what was your first summer job?

HOLLIDAY: I was -- well, I worked at a frozen yogurt shop.

WILLIAMS: There you go.

HOLLIDAY: And then I was your average, boring nanny.

WILLIAMS: No. That's...

HOLLIDAY: To the best family ever.

WILLIAMS: That's excellent. Tom.

HOLLIDAY: Such a boring...

WILLIAMS: Tom, summer job? Any one of them.

FITTON: I worked at Bamberger's.

WILLIAMS: OK. Fry -- fry guy? Or cashier?

FITTON: That was retail. Macy's -- before Macy's, you have Bamberger's.

WILLIAMS: Oh, that's a retail shop! I thought it was a burger shop. Look at me. Go figure.

Bolling, what was your summer job?

BOLLING: I had a paper route.

WILLIAMS: Paper route. Kat?

TIMPF: I worked at a pizza and sandwich shop.

WILLIAMS: OK, excellent.

TIMPF: What was yours?

WILLIAMS: Well, I had so many. But I sold chicken wings. That's a bit of a buried lead there.

TIMPF: All right. Thank you.

Thank you to our "Fox News Specialists" today, Shelby Holliday and Tom Fitton.

And we thank you all for watching. And make sure to follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on Twitter and Facebook. Remember, 5 p.m. will never be the same.

"Special Report" is next.

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