Has President Trump reached his limit with North Korea?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," August 8, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Kat Timpf along with Eboni K. Williams and Brian Kilmeade. This is "The Fox News Specialists." A game changer in the nuclear crisis with North Korea, the Washington Post is reporting that a new U.S. intelligence analysis says the rogue state has now miniaturized a nuclear war head that can fit inside its missiles. A crucial advance far ahead of what many experts predicted which is not good. President Trump delivered a blunt reply to the growing provocations from North Korea this afternoon.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal statement. And, as I said, they will be met with fire, fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.


TIMPF: The Washington Post also reporting that a separate U.S. intel report estimates that North Korea now has up to 60 nuclear weapons, also not good.

BRIAN KILMEADE, CO-HOST: I would not think so. First off, I think it's very significant. For the most part a president that is feel free to tweet and do other things and people think loose domestically has been very measured internationally. And for him to look down and say fire and fury, he has looked at this situation almost from the day he got the job as president-elect. He has never spoken as direct like that. And I think he's reaching his limit and knowing his chief of staff is a marine general, I sense this is the beginning of the interaction where this is where we should take this. This is where we should take the rhetoric. This is where we should take. This is the message we need to send.

TIMPF: It did sound different than we have heard President Trump before on this issue. Eboni, what do you think?

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Yeah. It sounded very different, Kat. It didn't sound like a plea to China. It didn't sound like an international call to arms. It sounded like don't mess with us. And if you push me, I'm going to be forced to push back. That power part that he added the second time he talked about fire and fury I don't think was happenstance.

TIMPF: Well, let's meet today's specialists. He is a retired green beret master sergeant, the host of Outdoor Channel hit series Hollywood Weapons, and the author of A Guide To Improvised Weaponry, how to protect yourself with whatever you got, but he specializes in rescuing senior dogs, very well rounded man, Terry Schappert is here. And he is the CEO of American Majority, a presidential writer for George W. Bush, and a Trump surrogate, but he specializes in all things politics, Ned Ryun is here.


TIMPF: Thank you. Glad to have you.


KILMEADE: One of these two specialists needs to be patted down. I think it's you.


TERRY SCHAPPERT, RETIRED GREEN BERET MASTER SERGEANT: Before you start, by the way, back in the green room, did you know that Ned Ryun's dad is Jim Ryun?


SCHAPPERT: I did not know that. And he actually called his dad and I had a conversation with Jim Ryun, so -- I can leave now.


SCHAPPERT: . the nicest guy.

NED RYUN, AMERICAN MAJORITY CEO: And the best part is, I took the phone afterwards and said, hey, I forgot to tell you I'm going to be on The Specialist. He says, yeah, I've got something else going on.


RYUN: Unbelievable.

KILMEADE: Going for a run?

SCHAPPERT: He was being sarcastic.

RYUN: Yeah.

TIMPF: My dad watch it. So my dad always watching. Hey, dad. So what do you think? Different tone from President Trump, do you think that's warranted? Do you think this means something? What were your thoughts on today?

RYUN: No. I mean, again, different tone, very strong tone. I think it needs to be reminded we can eliminate you in 15 minutes. And we have the ability. We have the capability. I think what brought the U.N. council -- Security Council to the table was Trump's credible use of force. He said I've it, I will use it, come to the table. Pass it unanimously the sanctions. Although with today's breaking news with Washington Post, and now they have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon into the United States, I think obviously the rhetoric just went up this afternoon. I think he's willing and capable, and there are plans being made to deal with this in a very forceful way.

TIMPF: Terry, I think the issue is, of course, that -- along with destroying them, there's a lot of innocent lives that will be destroyed. It's a hostage situation, which what makes it more complicated.

SCHAPPERT: Yeah. I mean, can we at least as a country, as a society, realize this is what happens when you placate enemies. I mean, we've been going this way for a long time. This has been going on for decades, right. So -- and we knew he'll always push the boundaries, always push the boundaries, and now he's at this point. The problem with Korea, North Korea and South Korea is you're right, I think the nuclear stuff is feared legitimately so. The big problem is North Korea unleashing a lot of conventional stuff right into South Korea before we can actually help them. There is going to be a lot of people -- it will be really ugly and nasty if that happens. But.

WILLIAMS: What's the alternative.

SCHAPPERT: Right. This is what happens when you let an enemy get worse and worse, and now he's like OK.

RYUN: The longer we wait it's going to be worse. It's going to be worse in six months.


RYUN: Every previous administration was kicking the can down the road. Starting with Clinton and then to Bush -- then to Obama, now to Trump. And Trump finally has to confront this and say we can no longer kick the can down the road.

WILLIAMS: I think the timeline is our problem, exactly to your point. We almost had no timeline to the point where now all of our options, Kat, are bad options. And that is unspeakable truth that nobody wants to deal with the consequences of civilian casualties. My God, nobody wants that. But, again, what are our alternatives in this day? I mean, it's horrible.

TIMPF: Of course, there are no good options, that's true. But also, Brian, as you know, Kim Jong-un knows that doing anything to us is literally the same as him committing suicide. He's committing suicide by doing anything like that.

KILMEADE: It destroys everything. He's enjoying the attention in the short-term. Let's just think about, I don't think to the defense of Clinton, to the defense of Bush, and Obama, and even today, if you think about it step-by-step it kind of makes sense. This is how duped we were. Bill Clinton said one of my big regrets was not finishing off the North Korean deal. They were ready to give up their nukes and I was just out of time as a president. And now the next president is going to come in and get all the credit. That's how close he thought we were to getting them denuclearized and things getting calm at that peninsula.

SCHAPPERT: As a North Korean government such as it, it's really nothing more than -- it's a cartel. It's a crime syndicate.

KILMEADE: Open up that cover on that country, it's going to be like the killing fields. There's going to be people starved to death. They're going to say how could the world have let this happen?

SCHAPPERT: This is also why, North Korea on another level, too, is not a long-term threat because they can't even feed their people. It's the same way we defeated the Soviets. We didn't end up bombing them. We just outspent them. We outspent them, we out-military hardware them. We outdid them in everything. They have no -- there's no depth to North Korea's resources. There really isn't. It's just the military.

RYUN: The thing I was going to say, I mean, before the breaking news this afternoon from the Washington Post, the sanctions were going to cut a billion in their export revenue out of 3 billion total, and would severely limit their abilities moving forward to actually build out their capabilities. But, again, Eboni, I think the timeline has gotten much shorter. And just talking with military friends again, the options that you're looking at are either real bloodshed on the Korean peninsula or, even worse, a nuclear missile striking continental U.S., neither are great options.

WILLIAMS: Both horrible options.

TIMPF: Certainly not. All right. Well, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., is pressing the case that tough new U.N. sanctions against North Korea could be enough to alter Kim Jong-un behavior.


AMB. NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: What this does do is, let's kick them in the gut. This goes right after the hard currency. He is going to feel it. And all that money that he's been using for his ballistic missile program, you know, and he's not feeding his people, it just got reduced in a big way. What we are saying is now the ball is in your court. Kim now has to decide is he going to turn around and say, OK, the international community is telling me to stop or is he going to have a temper tantrum.


WILLIAMS: Well, with much respect to Ambassador Haley there, I think she's doing great work at the U.N. She's speaking as he's a rational, reasonable, sensible, logical person, and we know for a fact he's not. So, I think he's liable to do anything.

KILMEADE: Liable to do anything, whose first move was to wipe out all his enemies, including some of his relatives, and eventually poison his half- brother because he might be a threat to him. But it shows he's a planner and plotter and he's somewhat fearless, all right? He doesn't diet well. He certainly doesn't exercise.


WILLIAMS: Nor does he get a good haircut.

SCHAPPERT: That's an awful thing to say. How dare I take it that way.

TIMPF: His hair does look healthy, though. I feel like he does get it trimmed every six weeks.

KILMEADE: But you do get the sense that he is not crazy.

SCHAPPERT: He's a survivor.

WILLIAMS: Crazy like a fox, right?

SCHAPPERT: He's a survivor.

KILMEADE: Cunning and ruthless.

SCHAPPERT: Funny story, coming in today from the airport, my driver was a Korean guy, South Korean guy. We started chatting. He was in the U.S. army. He worked with special sources. We had the best conversation. I just said -- he's from Seoul. His family is from Seoul. That he's hasn't been there for a long time. Can North Korea and South Korea be unified, do you think? He goes, nope, never, as long as those guys are in power. So it's almost like you've got to rip them out root and branch. This is not an easy question, but.

TIMPF: Regime change, you talk about regime change, how would that happen, how exactly? We're not very good at doing those, by the way.

RYUN: They eradicate the cartel.


RYUN: I mean that's the only way that you do this. I mean, first of all, the cartels sole goal and purpose for the last seven or eight decades is to get the capabilities, nuclear capabilities that they're getting, and it appears now have, to be able launch into the continental U.S. So they have achieved what the cartel set out to do, and you have to remove that in its entirety. The Chinese have to play a role in this if they want to. This is the big question. Again, I know that China voted on the sanctions and it was unanimous vote. I think what the Chinese and their role in this moving forward is kind of a trust but verify. Again, I think people have forgotten. They voted for sanctions back in 2012, and guess what they did? They looked the other way when a Chinese bank was laundering money into North Korea.

WILLIAMS: And that's my problem with sanctions. Again, a lot of people stepped to the table rhetorically in support. Never worth the paper it's written on, almost impossible to actually enforce.

KILMEADE: There was one time in which we brought them to their knees, and it was during the second term of the Bush administration when they got to the Macao bank. This bank for some reason was the blood money that they were getting to sustain their regime. And the minute we took that they said we need to talk and we need to talk right away. One of the things we did is removed them from the list of terror nations. One of the things we did is we said we're going to have inspectors in there. And then it looked like they thoroughly duped the administration. Condoleezza Rice ran out of time. And we look back to Chris Hill and company, and we said what the heck happened? It wasn't that they were lazy. And then the Obama administration comes in and says I have an idea, strategic patience. That clearly put a time bomb -- it pulled the pin, if I can use your analogy, on a grenade and handed it to Donald Trump. Someone is going to blame Donald Trump for this, I'm sure.

SCHAPPERT: No matter what, it's going to fall on the current president. And to your point about China, I always said when you're talking about North Korea in general, when you've seen over these years, when you've seen them on the news, just substitute the word China, because China is -- North Korea is kind of a gallium that China has created willingly and with malice, aforethought. I think at some point -- I always called them a pit bull. And it's a pit bull that they were always be able to maintain some control over and they would bring that pit bull out into the yard when people were bugging them, or they want to get some attention. But now, it's almost like at some point what are you going to do with this pit bull? Are you going to put them down? Do they still control the pit bull?

RYUN: And that's the question. If China, I think -- once China feels like it's still control its pit bull? And if it can't -- obviously, they don't want to have North Korea -- they don't want North Korea.

TIMPF: They don't want nuclear activity in that part of the world.

RYUN: Right. And they don't want North Korea to completely implode as a country, and also have millions of North Korean refugees coming into China.

TIMPF: Exactly. Which is what my question is, when they see this ramping up, might they want to, for their own sake, get more involved?

RYUN: Right. I think I'll believe that the Chinese are getting serious when they start to cut off the crude oil imports.

KILMEADE: Oil. Right now they only stop coal. They're stopping coal but not oil.

RYUN: About 90 percent I believe of North Korea's imports in crude oil come from China. When China starts to cut off that oil, then I know that they're getting serious.

WILLIAMS: Not only that, a lot of the actual material used for some of these missiles is also coming straight from China. They are literally enablers in the purest sense of the term. So I wonder, Brian, how do we incentivize the world and incentivize China?

KILMEADE: Very simple, the South China Sea they want to dominate. But guess what? Not only do we not want to let them do that, we have a reason to be there, because we have a belligerent neighbor to their south, so we want to see -- we have to have a military presence. And you know what? We're also responsible with Japan and South Korea.


KILMEADE: So I would have to put the THAAD missile system there, that drives them crazy. I'm going to have to put additional destroyers in the region. That will drive them crazy. I'm going to have to perhaps put defensive nuclear weapons in Japan. That will drive everybody crazy. Then you'll act.

SCHAPPERT: Yeah. You can't -- I think we can all agree this doesn't get done by just strong wording condemnation. You've got to hurt them. You've got to make that -- those leaders you've got to bleed them. And a big -- I don't want that. I've been fighting wars for 25 years. But, they've got to -- we've got to take them down.


TIMPF: But I do want to see how China responds to this ramping up, because they don't want war in that area either, most of all.

KILMEADE: I just want to challenge the theory that everyone seems to agree on that it's going to be a disaster if Kim falls. They're already starving to death. They already have no rights. You drop food in there it will be the best day they've ever had. We go in there with food -- the U.N., and say we have no more guns we just want to feed you. I think that would be OK.

TIMPF: They have been said, propaganda, that we're the enemy. That we're the ones trying to go after them, because it's not like here where we have all these different media sources. Kim Jong-un tells them what they think.

KILMEADE: Good point.

TIMPF: So they don't think, oh, thank the United States for being here, because they have been brainwashed.

WILLIAMS: They're starving, though. And someone gives you a cracker, I think you're liable to listen.

TIMPF: I suppose so, but it's been a very, very involve complicated process of indoctrination where they think that they need to be afraid of us. So it's not going to be quite that simple. All right, when we come back, President Trump holding major briefing today on the opioid crisis ravaging many parts of the U.S., can it be contained? Don't go away.


WILLIAMS: President Trump taking on the opioid crisis today, convening a briefing with top health officials in Bedminster, New Jersey.


TRUMP: This is a tremendous problem in our country, and we're going to get it taken care of, as well as it can be taken care of, which hopefully will be better than any other country, which also has these same problems or similar problems. Nobody is safe from this epidemic that threatens young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural communities. Everybody is threatened. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. And opioid overdose deaths have nearly quadrupled since 1999. It is a problem the likes of which we have not seen.


WILLIAMS: Now, last week a commission started by President Trump to study the crisis recommended the declaration of a national emergency to try to stop the epidemic. The commission reported that approximately 142 Americans are now dying every day due to drug overdose. Kat, I'll start with you. This is not, unfortunately, new for America. We saw heroin in the 70's, we saw crack in the 80's. Here we are now with a resurgence of this opioid addiction and its killing people. So we know that war on drugs did not work, historically. What about these answers we're seeing from President Trump. I'll go through a few that he taunted on the campaign trail. Building a wall along the U.S. border, the south apparently coming in from the southern border, also increasing recovery fund for certain programs and then, of course, treating this unlike we did with the war on drugs, treating it not with a law and order regime but with a humanitarian approach.

TIMPF: Right. And I'm not a big fan of the wall, but treating it with a humanitarian approach I think it's about time that we take a look at doing something like that. When we put people in prison for this, we end up breaking up families. It doesn't really stop anyone for doing it. They come out. They have something on their record. They can't get a job. They go back to dealing drugs. They go back to prison, families are ripped to part. The cycle just repeats itself. I think that it's very important to take a look at that approach. I also think we need to be very careful not to crack down too hard on doctors to the point where -- we'll make it impossible for people who do need this medication for legitimate reasons, people with chronic pain, they might go to the black market, and then we'll have people with heroin problems. So I think that treating it in a humanitarian way is a good thing.

WILLIAMS: Ned, what do you think about the president's solutions.

RYUN: No, I think people, you know, the whole thing that's taking place right now, 50 years ago the typical heroin addict was a young teenage boy in the inner city. Now 75 percent of the opioid addicts are middle class, suburban, soccer moms, you know, 20 somethings. And so, who started on legal narcotics and then realized heroin is cheaper. And so it's been this whole pills to heroin pipeline. And I think part of what we have been dealing with I would say a significant part of what we've been dealing with, I would say a significant part of what we've been dealing with is we've incentivized the wrong behavior.

If you look at what the centers for Medicaid and Medicare do, they're giving incentive payments to hospitals that have good response from patients. We're filling out these survey forms and getting response on how they were treated. How the providers dealt with pain. And so the response to pain and how those are filled out in the survey, and the survey, you know, incentivized responding and then giving incentive, I think we've incentivized the wrong behavior and actually increased doctor's willingness and desire because they want good rating. They want to have good ratings and get these incentive payments. So then, deal overly aggressively and overprescribe narcotics and opioids.

WILLIAMS: That's fascinating. I was going to say, Brian, I know my experience working as both a public defender and private defense lawyer, I would see these nurses in different -- you know, suburban people that had legitimate pain at some point, and then it evolved into what becomes a vicious cycle of heroin addiction. How do we stop it?

KILMEADE: I would say if we could stop blaming first off, OK? I'm not going to blame the doctors. Maybe they could have been more responsible. I'm not going to blame the parents. I don't know if they could possibly have been better parents. Look at the situation. Stop judging people and start taking action. Don't necessarily say we're going to put everyone in jail. Don't say I'm not going to put everyone in jail. I think you've got to -- number one, you have to -- I think the good news is we're not -- we're not coming down on the family down the block that has a kid that's suddenly is out of control. I think that we lost the stigma of -- you're bad parents because your kid is on this stuff. And I think that having press conferences like that today helps.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. Terry, to that point -- I mean, obviously, heart breaking, it's not getting better. It's getting worse. Fentanyl is now flooding the market as well, even more deadly than heroin. How do we back this up and stop the bleeding, so to speak.

SCHAPPERT: Yeah. I mean, if I had that answer I'd probably be doing something else in my life.

WILLIAMS: What do you mean? You wouldn't be on The Specialist?

SCHAPPERT: No, no, I don't mean to ever imply that.

RYUN: No. Is our approach to pain. We have to look at our approach to pain and have a much more appropriate response. I was actually talking with a good family friend who runs multiple E.R.'s they say there's a couple other problems in incentivizing the wrong behavior. When somebody walks into an E.R., there's a 30 minute window in which we have to deal with the pain. And if they say on 8 of 10 -- you know pain -- we have 8 out of 10 on the pain scale, we actually have to address that before we even get x-rays back. It's like Motrin doesn't cut it. We actually have to prescribe narcotics.


RYUN: So it's like we have that 30-minute window, and then, again, customer response surveys are also incentivizing wrong behavior. So instead of giving 5 or 10 pills, we're giving 10 or 20.


WILLIAMS: I'm with that.

RYUN: So instead of giving seven days, we're getting ten days.

WILLIAMS: You know what else? Most people that use -- are dual diagnosis. They're treating a mental illness along with the substance abuse issue. So I think that's another space where maybe our federal and state governments can be helpful around supporting and putting more funding towards mental health treatment as well.

TIMPF: When we talk about overdose death, a lot of times people say, oh, it's an opioid overdose death. They don't include the fact that it was combined with alcohol or with something else.

SCHAPPERT: I mean, the thing is, it's tough because drugs make you feel better. You know, there's a legitimate use of it, obviously, in the medical field. I was a Green Beret medic for most in my career. I actually carry fentanyl. We have fentanyl lollipops for guys -- stay conscious. We can actually put them in their mouth, and even if they fell asleep they would have pain but it was very, very low dose administration. Brandon Darby does great work on this for Breitbart Texas. He talks about the border, not just the wall, there's a lot of these big ports where a lot of the heroin is coming in.

WILLIAMS: A lot of the fentanyl is coming in from China. So that's not a southern border wall situation.

KILMEADE: And there was a huge bust right here in New York City.


SCHAPPERT: Who would have thought.

KILMEADE: By the way, the surveillance and great detective work brought -- it wasn't lucky. It wasn't just pulling the guy over. It turns out he's got all these opioids and heroin.

SCHAPPERT: No, they worked on that.

KILMEADE: They worked on it. So that's fantastic.

WILLIAMS: Three-million-dollars' worth, no less. American's confidence in the economy soaring to 15 year high, can President Trump turn it into surge of political support for his agenda? Stay with us.


KILMEADE: All right, American views the economy are better than they've been over the last 15 years. According to a CBS News study, 69 percent of U.S. adults describe the U.S. economy as good, compared to 30 percent as bad. Wait a second, is that actually something other networks should be running? The surge in confidence comes with strong job growth and rock bottom unemployment, which you can't lie with those numbers. But that same polls show a lagging overall approval rating for President Trump, despite getting his highest marks on handling the economy. So, can he turn America's growing economic optimism into a broader support for his agenda. What do you think, Ned, can he -- I know you want him to, and you see these numbers, how do you bridge the gap?

RYUN: Why are we even talking about a president approval numbers who's not on the ballot until 2020. I literally don't care, because guess what? Let me just remind viewers, 1991, George H.W. Bush had a 90 percent approval rating.

KILMEADE: Persian Gulf War.

RYUN: Guess who didn't win in 1992?


TIMPF: I think I know.

RYUN: George H.W. Bush. And so I look at these and go I don't really care that much. The economy is booming. Small business, optimism has been the highest it's been in over a decade. Jobs, we had a great job report in July. Part of me is just I really don't care that much.

The other thing too, Brian, if the polls were right, Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House. And they aren't. The only poll -- the only poll that I really care about is election night when the polls close. That's the only poll.

KILMEADE: And the midterms.

SCHAPPERT: The only thing I care about is stuff getting done. I mean, there haven't been more polls more wrong more often than with president -- with President Trump since he was running.

And as far as you were asking about turning it around, it's not going to get turned around by any establishment media sources, because they're not going to say anything good about President Trump. I mean, we know this. So it's going to be "Oh, wait a minute, this is cheaper. Oh, wait, my job is better." It's going to be something tangible. It's not going to be unless they are watching, of course, fair and balanced reporting.

KILMEADE: A lot of times leadership doesn't involve doing something popular. A lot of times leadership involves doing something you think is right.

Kat, you see those numbers. I know Ned is going to yell at you if you answer this question. So please, Ned, don't do it.

RYUN: I will not yell. I promise.

KILMEADE: Can you take on that premise of how do you -- if the approval is low but the approval in the economy is high. How does President Trump equate that?

TIMPF: I think that Terry is right, is that people want to see how it can impact their own life. If they see their life getting better -- "Hey, maybe it's easier for me to start a business, because we're not as bogged down by regulations as we used to be." And then he'll have a higher favorability rating. People don't care as much about things that don't affect them directly.

RYUN: First of all, we're 200 days in. Let's give it -- let's give this a little bit of time.

TIMPF: But it's been going down. It's been going down by a lot.

RYUN: No, wait. It's been bogged down a lot.

TIMPF: Part of that is he talks about it a lot. He talks about his own problems a lot.

RYUN: The thing that you're going to be seeing a lot of, I think, the -- moving down the road is he's cut nearly a thousand regulations from the Obama era.

TIMPF: That's great.

RYUN: He's actually at a rate of 16 to 1.

KILMEADE: Added a million jobs. Cut Food Stamps by a million.

RYUN: Right. There's a lot of positive things happening. That has a trickle-down effect on the economy and jobs; not overnight but in the months to come. So give it time.

WILLIAMS: Right, OK. So the numbers look good in terms of the economy. I, of course, would submit that they have been looking good if we're talking about unemployment rates. They've been looking good for a while now. So some of that stuff is not new.

I agree the polls don't matter. His popularity in this since doesn't matter right now. Perhaps it will.

I'll pick on your premise, Brian. When we come to connecting good economy numbers to Trump's overall appeal, the truth is most people are assessing Trump not on what feels good to them in their pocketbook, a lot of people. It's larger than that. It's his personality. Those are the things people are talking about.

RYUN: Mainstream media acting as the opposition...

WILLIAMS: I don't think it's just that. I don't think it's just that, Ned. I think that the -- absolutely, the mainstream media is in the bag for Trump opposition. No, I'm not disputing your point. I'm saying that Trump, in addition to that, though, is creating a narrative that makes it hard for people to get behind him.


RYUN: ... pick on his narrative?

KILMEADE: I can answer -- I can answer it this way. If you had legislative accomplishments to go along with the economic numbers, that would go...

TIMPF: That would help.

RYUN: Whose fault is that?

KILMEADE: And we do know that Mitch McConnell has just spoken to the Rotary Club, and ABC is running this story that he's very critical of a rookie, my words, an inexperienced president who has unrealistic expectations of a time line for success.

WILLIAMS: That's not the -- that's not the mainstream media, Ned.

RYUN: Really? You know what? You want Congress' approval rating? No.

KILMEADE: Terry, I want to ask you this question. Is President Trump guilty of an unrealistic time line?

SCHAPPERT: No, of course not. And the -- Mitch McConnell and those dudes and gals are just as threatened by President Trump as the Democrats.

WILLIAMS: They are.

RYUN: Totally agree.

SCHAPPERT: He has taken -- he has taken -- he has taken food off their table, potentially, because they've been exposed for what they are. They've been caught, and they're kind of complicit in a lot of this stuff. So I mean, the whole poll thing, it just cracks me up.

WILLIAMS: I'll say this. I'll say this, Ned. I think the biggest mistake the president has made thus far is listening, actually, to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan...

SCHAPPERT: Totally agree with you. Totally agree.

WILLIAMS: ... to start with healthcare, in a way that was en route (ph). Start with infrastructure or tax reform. Either one of those would have been a better starting point.

RYUN: Two things that I want to say, though, really quick. Look at Quinnipiac's poll from last week. Guess who's on the ballot next year? Congress. Their approval rating right now, 10 percent.


RYUN: So that's an issue.

KILMEADE: Individually, that is the story. But you only care about the...

TIMPF: But if we're talking about President Trump there are things he can do to help himself.

RYUN: I think so -- I think...

TIMPF: Not going after plastic surgery by morning show hosts and things like that.

KILMEADE: He hasn't done that in a while.

TIMPF: I know, but...


RYUN: When he stays on message it's amazing.

TIMPF: I love -- I love what he's done for the economy, and it would be great to spend more time thinking about that if he wouldn't do such a good job sometimes of distracting from it.

RYUN: To Terry's point, this is either massive incompetence on a Republican leadership or it's actually intentional. Neither of which are good scenarios.

KILMEADE: I don't believe it's intentional. He was three people short of getting his job -- the job done with Obamacare. I do think it's just McCain, Murkowski and Collins. If he had 90 percent approval rating, I don't think you could have convinced them.

But if you guys don't mind sticking around, I believe we have 25 minutes left to the show. Coming up straight ahead, government scientists...

SCHAPPERT: I've got to think about it.

KILMEADE: We're going to find out if Terry will be back. But this will be the topic if he decides to stick around. An alarmist climate change report to the New York Times, was leaked to them and they published it today. But there's only really one glacier-sized hole in this hysterical report. This is all involved in that report. It's going to be coming your way, because it was leaked to The New York Times, and I was able to buy it for $3.25.

WILLIAMS: The economy is doing...


TIMPF: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Ned Ryun and Terry Schappert. Let's continue the conversation.

A leak by government scientists is attempting to whip up climate change hysteria and undermine the Trump administration. Today The New York Times published a front-page article saying, quote, "Climate Report Full of Warnings Awaits President" with the sub-headline, "Fears of Suppression." Wow, that sure sounds ominous.

Naturally many in the media have run wild with it, but there's just one problem. The draft of this climate change report has been publicly available online since -- wait for it -- January. So apparently, the Trump administration is going to suppress a report that's already been public since January? Great job, New York Times.

All right, so apparently, wasn't able to suppress it. Been around since January.

KILMEADE: OK. Fundamentally, I'm a little upset that somebody on the inside of the administration, after that speech by General Kelly: No more leaks, think about your country, think about the president, think about your job. And stop leaking go. They go leak it out.

Now it turns out, this thing was not top-secret. In fact it was very redundant. And most of the things that are in this report that was leaked out already online, according to the people that wrote it, was something that's already been concluded by 13 separate agencies.

But they really have that little faith in the president to think that he's going to suppress this climate change report, because it doesn't go with leaving the Paris agreement? They know what the scientists say.

And they also say that they have a different opinion. Climate is changing. They are not sure about the role of man's role in the fact that climate is changing.

TIMPF: Eboni.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I mean, look, I think there are a lot of casualties, right, of the 2016 election. And I've been very vocal, DOJ, State Department. And mass media, particularly The New York Times. Let's go back to when after the election, they actually apologized for their coverage and said that they would do better. The problem is...

KILMEADE: They are doing better.

WILLIAMS: I know they're doing better in terms of bottom line. Two blocks ago, what did we talk about? Better economy, Kilmeade, and they're benefiting, too.

But in terms of credibility, this is one of those reach stories for me. And it's unfortunate when I think there's legitimate things that should be covered by this White House [SIC] and just like any White House, and this feels like a reach.

SCHAPPERT: It's kind of -- I'm sorry.

TIMPF: Go ahead, Terry.

SCHAPPERT: It's kind of silly, because they're almost acting like "Ooh, he's suppressing this." Like this climate change stuff is not around; it's everywhere. It's been going on for years.

I think the question is I take it away from that. You can talk about a climate. You can talk about man's effect on it. I don't -- that's not beyond the pale. I mean, I think we do influence the environment.

The question really is what do you -- what are you going to do for the United States, their economy, their security, their way of life? It's funny, because the people who are pushing this climate change radical legislation work for the little guy. What's going to happen when energy...

RYUN: It's for the little guy. It's for emerging countries.

SCHAPPERT: It crushes the little guy. There's -- what they want to do is not what they say they want to do. And it's a lot bigger than that.

And that's where they're losing a lot of people who might listen to them, because I might listen to you, but as soon as you start throwing that stuff, "You hate the children. You want the environment to go away," I just shut off, because it's like, no, that's not what it is. I just want to keep America on top. Easy.

KILMEADE: How did a scientific debate get so emotional?

RYUN: The thing, though, Terry, the point really quick, though, is these emerging third-world economies, they need cheap fuel. And the cheap fuel right now is obviously oil and coal and all these things, and these guys want to shut it -- essentially, I look at it as them wanting to shut the door on these emerging economies that want to better their station in the world and better their citizens' life. And they're trying to shut the door on it.

I think that the thing that's interesting, too, about the New York Times, they were also encouraging EPA staff to leak on Scott Pruitt. So, I find myself very skeptical about the New York Times' pledge to do better things moving forward after the 2016 elections.

First of all, I haven't seen them apologizing for their story back in February about the whole Russian collusion fairy tale. That all to say, just kind of par for the New York Times, this newest story.

KILMEADE: Do you know what I was amazed at? When Al Gore comes out -- and by the way, his movie would have been No. 1 if it wasn't for 15 other movies.

RYUN: He could have been a contender.


RYUN: He could have been a contender.

WILLIAMS: Nice shade there.

KILMEADE: A lot of times movies do better when people show up to see them. But they didn't.

But when he says, "I watch the news every night, and it's like watching the book of revelation."

RYUN: Oh, come on.

KILMEADE: Come on. That's called rain and snow, and it happens.

WILLIAMS: He also -- he also compared climate change to the civil rights movement, which I was very...

SCHAPPERT: Pretty insulting, I think.

WILLIAMS: It was insulting. It felt like very kind of lazy of an analogy, quite frankly.

And look, to your point, I think the Democratic Party has a lot of economic messages that it could be making to a particular part of their base.

SCHAPPERT: No doubt.

WILLIAMS: And I think they are taking all of these missed opportunities.

SCHAPPERT: This is the wrong one for them.

WILLIAMS: Going in the direction that hasn't worked in, I don't know, two to three elections. So I'm not really sure when they're going to get that memo.

TIMPF: You know what? I'm not sure either. We're just going to have to wait and see. Straight ahead. A U.S. Congressman...

KILMEADE: First time I ever heard it.

TIMPF: I know.


TIMPF: ... facing protests after hanging a painting of hijab wearing Statue of Liberty in his office. We'll be right back to talk about that.


WILLIAMS: Controversy erupting over a painting of the Statue of Liberty dressed in a Muslim hijab. The painting is now hanging in the California office of Democratic Congressman Lou Carrera, and the congressman's office is scrambling to control the uproar.


REP. LOU CARRERA, D-CALIF.: The person who did the painting is a student to entered our art contest. She was one of the finalists and was the fourth-place winner. We made a decision to post the finalists, if they so choose, in our office for the following year.

Sir, just because you find it offensive, there may be other residents who do not find it offensive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't find it offensive -- that many people.

CARRERA: They may find something you feel is offensive to them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are saying there should be a separation of church and state. That is our issue here today.


WILLIAMS: Congressman Carrera says he has no plans to take down the painting. This art controversy follows another incident from earlier this year, when Democratic Congressman -- a Democratic congressman hung a painting depicting police officers as pigs in the U.S. Capitol. That painting was ultimately taken down.

Kat, I'll come to you on this. Obviously, many people, I'm sure, were offended by both of those paintings for various reasons. But being offended is different than having a First Amendment right to express oneself.

TIMPF: Yes, the separation of church and state. So one painting in one dude's office equals a government-established religion? Honestly, that's one of the dumbest words that I've ever heard in my life. The fact that anybody is asking for this to be removed.

First of all, it's not even a religious thing; it's clearly a political statement. And it's a political statement criticizing the president, which is the purpose of the First Amendment, is that we are allowed to criticize our leaders, if we want to, without fear of being arrested for it, like they are in countries that are not free.

I don't understand how one painting equals established religion in this country. It's really upsetting and, quite frankly, confusing that anybody could be so idiotic as to say that this is somehow a constitutional violation.

SCHAPPERT: Kat, I think -- I think this proves you hate America, but let's move on.

WILLIAMS: Oh, my God, Terry.

SCHAPPERT: Just kidding.

TIMPF: I'm a terrorist, as well.

SCHAPPERT: And you're just a really bad person. I know you quite well.

WILLIAMS: We did not rehearse it that way, Terry. What are you talking about?

SCHAPPERT: You know, this whole art contest thing, they did the one with the police as pigs and they did this thing. It's so obvious that the people doing this are just deliberately baiting conservatives. And they're taking the bait. It's -- it's dumb. But what they also want to do is paint themselves...

WILLIAMS: Is it dumb? A Muslim...

SCHAPPERT: Is it doesn't bother me at all. What it is, though, they know that there's going to be a reaction. And so what they're doing is setting themselves up as the persecuted victims. So the congressman is going, "I'm not going to take this down."

TIMPF: Sarah Palin came out against it. It's like, come on home, girl. You wrote a book about the war on Christmas. All right? Like, please.

KILMEADE: And I wish conservatives would realize it's a very good book.

TIMPF: I have not read it.

SCHAPPERT: I bet it was great. I just wish conservatives would see this for what it is. Don't worry about it. It's a bait. It's to make you freak out.

RYUN: No, it's just I think I would probably take it from a little different angle of what does -- what does having the Statue of Liberty in a hijab have anything to do with liberty or freedom? And I would take it with -- I've talked with some of my Muslim friends.

WILLIAMS: Is that a real question?

RYUN: Yes, it is a real question, because you know what? The Afghanistan...

WILLIAMS: I can tell you.

RYUN: ... and Iraq, all these women that were liberated from ISIS-held territory, you know what the first thing they did?

SCHAPPERT: Take it off.

RYUN: They took them off and they burned them.

WILLIAMS: I understand that. But for Muslims that -- OK, here's the other thing, Ned. I want to answer your question because I asked you if it was a real question, and you said it was.

RYUN: Absolutely.

WILLIAMS: So if you're a Muslim and a woman and you do subscribe to wearing that, in this country, as I'm sure -- this is New York City. I know I see them all the time. Why shouldn't you feel like you're a part of the American dream and the representations of life, liberty and justice for all? That's a real question, too.

RYUN: Yes. No, I would actually argue that, when you look at what it has represented and when women in the Middle East are given the freedom...

WILLIAMS: That's one interpretation. That's one interpretation, but ones that elect to wear it, I'm asking you why can't they see representations of their choice in American culture?

RYUN: But I would argue from the fact that it is the antithesis of freedom, equality, women's rights.


RYUN: All of these things because the antithesis of our American values. That's why.

KILMEADE: I have six seconds to add my two cents in and maybe we can get some ratings in this segment. Just kidding.

It's a high school contest since 1982. If this is called "Faces of America," I am calling for an end to the contest. End this high school contest. Shut it down. Let the kids have an extra period off to run in the street...

TIMPF: Run in the street.

KILMEADE: ... and play ice hockey or something.

TIMPF: No kids running in the street.

KILMEADE: Let the kids run in the street in traffic. No more painting. No more drawing. No more art. Pick up a math book.

SCHAPPERT: Christmas is cancelled.

WILLIAMS: Way to drop the mike on that one, Kilmeade.

Well, now we've got to say goodbye to our specialists. Oh, so sad. Terry Schappert and Ned Ryun. Thank you both for joining us.

Next up, "Wait, What? Don't go away.


KILMEADE: All right now, it's time for the last segment of the show, as it is every single day. It's time for...




KILMEADE: Let's kick things off. I think we're going to do it with Eboni.

WILLIAMS: Oh, am I going first? So my "Wait, What?" was last night, like every good American, I was watching the finale of "The Bachelorette." And you know, my girl Rachel, I can't say that I understood her choice. She ended up going with Brian there. He actually got the first impression rose. And I know you already knew that, Kilmeade, because you watched every episode.

KILMEADE: Why would I miss it?

WILLIAMS: Right. And so he got the first and the last rose. It was -- I said it was a "Wait, What?" moment, because she was clearly in love with this guy Peter, as well. And really, Brian kind of won by default.

TIMPF: I've watched a couple of the seasons. I feel like if I were on that show, I would have a big problem, because the first night I would meet them all and send them all home.

KILMEADE: That would be a problem.

TIMPF: "You guys are all awful," and the show would be over.

KILMEADE: A lot of repeats to run. Do you want to take Eboni's "Wait, What?" Or do you have one of your own?

TIMPF: I have one of my own. It's very important, and you know, it's something that's been too ignored by the mainstream media.

KILMEADE: Which is?

TIMPF: There was a -- can we just show this video? There was a raccoon that got his head stuck in a peanut butter jar.

WILLIAMS: Oh my gosh.

TIMPF: And look at this, look at this. He's running around, and he thinks that his whole day. He thinks -- you know, I don't know what he thinks, because I can't read his mind. But I bet you he's really pretty scared.

And then, you know, some people came, and they were able to remove the peanut butter jar from his head. And now he is living free in the wilderness, and he's very full of peanut butter.

But look at that. What a distressing moment. And that's, just, you know, a little reminder for all of us that, you know, there's always hope.


TIMPF: Whether you've got a peanut butter jar on your head or not.

KILMEADE: That's what you take from this, there's always hope?

And by the way, I'm so glad the raccoon survived, because we are running out of raccoons.

TIMPF: Yes, we are.

KILMEADE: Save a raccoon.

And by the way, I just want to bring up the fact that my radio show is on every day from 9 to noon, "The Brian Kilmeade Show." And I'm privileged to have on as a guest for the first time in a long time, the hero of last week for the Trump administration. Steven Miller, will be joining us and talking about the president's non-vacation. They're working on the West Wing. And Bedminster, as well as the opioid crisis and, most importantly, where we go from here on North Korea. I'll get the latest from the man who puts the words in the president's mouth. He's a speech writer.

TIMPF: Make sure you get from him what he thinks about the raccoon in the peanut butter jar.

KILMEADE: That's my lead question.

WILLIAMS: And the second question is Rachel's choice.

KILMEADE: It is, really. In the 16 seconds, let's hope I have the copy to fill up. Now we'll take a wide shot. That's all the time we have today. We thank you 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 because you're watching us.

Now it's time for Bret Baier.

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.