How revealing are Comey's prepared remarks on Trump?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," June 7, 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 Eric Bolling and Eboni K. Williams. We are "The Fox News Specialists." A big sneak preview of James Comey's testimony to the Senate Intel Committee tomorrow, committee releasing his prepared opening remarks a short time ago. There's a lot to digest here. So joining us now with more from Washington is Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS: Well, thanks, Kat. Look, this is really an amazing seven pages of prepared testimony from the fired FBI director James Comey. And when you read it, it's really one revelation after another, debunking a lot of the media reporting that alleged that President Trump had tried to spike the Russia probe. So let's begin with the first meeting that's documented in the prepared testimony and that's in early January, and it was a briefing at Trump Tower between Mr. Trump and FBI Director Comey. And Comey was there to discuss the so-called anti-Trump dossier, that's the anti-Trump intelligence folder that made salacious allegations against the incoming president.

And at that time, James Comey already discussed with senior FBI leadership whether he should be prepared to tell Mr. Trump that he was not under federal investigation. And it was at that meeting that Mr. Comey volunteered to the incoming president that he was not under federal investigation at that time over Russia's connections and meddling in the U.S. election. At a dinner later that month, with the FBI director and now President Trump, Mr. Trump said to Comey did he want to stay as FBI director? And I'm quoting here, the president said I need loyalty. I expect loyalty. I didn't move, Comey wrote, speak or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.

And then Comey says later in the conversation, the president returned to the same subject. I need loyalty. I replied, that's Comey, you will always get honesty from me. He paused and then said, that's what I want, honest loyalty. I paused and then said that's what you'll get for me. After a February 14th meeting, the president raised the issue of national security advisor Mike Flynn. A day earlier, Flynn had resigned from that position. And Comey writes, the president stating, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He's a good guy. I hope you can let this go. Comey then stated he understood the president was requesting that they drop the investigation into Flynn, but not the entire Russia probe, Kat.

TIMPF: So that's the way that they get around it essentially? I know people have different views. Some people are saying this totally vindicates Trump, and some people are saying, oh, see, he's in big trouble now. I don't know what to think.

HERRIDGE: Well, you know, the words are going to be really important here. When you read the prepared testimony, the language right there's that he requested him to let go of this. He didn't order him to. He didn't tell him it was mandatory. And it was simply not enough based on this prepared testimony for Comey to go to his boss, the attorney general, or the deputy attorney general and say I think we have obstruction of justice here because there's a corrupt intent. So it will be very important tomorrow to listen to the way Director Comey, the fired FBI director, delivers the prepared testimony, the tone of his language, listen to the words that he chooses, the pauses that he inserts into testimony, and I think most significantly whether he will take questions that go beyond this, because legal experts have said to us that if he doesn't take questions on this particular topic beyond what he states, in opening testimony, that means it's still of investigative interest to the special counsel Robert Mueller.



BOLLING: I read these seven pages here. It doesn't seem.

HERRIDEG: I knew you would.


BOLLING: I honestly can't find it. But what I also can't find is where James Comey outlines his testimony, his sworn testimony in front of -- I believe it was congress, not senate, but congress, and he never mentioned some of these things. He never really explains why he didn't mention these meetings that he outlined so thoroughly in this June 8 missive.

HERRIDGE: Well, you know, you raise an interesting point because the fired FBI director says in the statement that it was routine really right out of the gate for him to document his meetings and conversations with either the incoming president or President Trump. But this was simply not his habit with President Obama in part because they didn't really have a lot of communication, based on this prepared testimony, sort of a handful of occasions. They haven't met in person or spoke on the phone. And even just in the first four months or so that President Trump was in office, he had almost a dozen conversations or interactions with him.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Catherine, very quickly, this is Eboni.


WILLIAMS: So we saw that this posting went up on the senate intel website around 2:00 this afternoon. Almost a full day before testimony is set to be heard. What do you make of it anything of the timing, how far advance we've all gotten to come through?

HERRIDGE: I think -- I'm so glad you asked that. It seems entirely weird to me. I've never seen such high-profile testimony released so far in advance, and it also struck me that it was really released within an hour of this morning's hearing that was behind me concluding. So maybe we'll get a better explanation tomorrow. Maybe it was an effort for people to digest what was going to be in that testimony, but I can't think of another case. Usually you get the prepared testimony like 3 minutes or 5 minutes before the hearing and then there's an embargo until the hearing begins, but that was simply not the case here.

WILLIAMS: Thank you so much, Catherine.

TIMPF: Thank you, Catherine. All right, time to meet today's specialists. He's the youngest person to ever be elected to the New York state legislature, he was president of the New York City council, and he's the former chairman of Democrats for Trump during the presidential campaign, but he specializes in hiking in Wyoming and Montana, Andrew stein is here. And he's a radio talk show host for CEO radio, 1000 AM, the founder and CEO of the national diversity coalition, and he was an executive committee member of President Trump's transition team, but he specializes in theological discussion and debate, Pastor Darrell Scott is here.

BOLLING: Kat, I honestly think I've figured this whole mess out. It's a charade that this one playing out. Comey said this, Trump said this, Trump did this. Comey took notes on this. Trump after reading seven pages of Comey's testimony, we're going to hear it tomorrow. You realize that Trump is unorthodox. He's not a regular politician. And maybe a long time career FBI director, entail guy, is used to dealing with politicians. He wasn't used to some of the conversations with a Donald Trump who's unorthodox and not a politician. But then, he can't go so far, and Comey can't go so far as to say there was obstruction of justice, nor was there interference, nor anything, or request to look the other way on an investigation.

TIMPF: Let me ask you a question.

BOLLING: . which tells me, if he's not willing to make the leap of faith, I'm not sure why we all should be.

TIMPF: Well, I don't know what he's or is not going to do. But let me ask you, if Bill Clinton said to Loretta Lynch, I hope you can let this Hillary thing go, would you be saying the same thing?

BOLLING: Kat, he did on four separate occasions, said that he was never asked to end the investigation by Donald Trump. He said there were four discussions but never once did Trump ask him to end the investigation.

TIMPF: So Eboni, is he goes out saying, oh, this is about Flynn, but it wasn't about Russia in general, is that how he's going to get out of those.


WILLIAMS: That's the issue, right. Kat, I mean, look, here's the thing. Eric knows how I stand on it. But he's right on this, Kat. Ultimately there's nothing that makes the legal conclusion of collusion, a legal conclusion of being asked to stop the investigation, and it doesn't even seem like Comey, Kat, is going to testify to that. So absent that, we've got Comey uncomfortable, Comey not liking it, Comey not being used to it, but we don't have something that amounts to obstruction.

TIMPF: Well, of course, Comey wouldn't want to do that because then he'd be incriminating himself. That makes sense to me at least.

DARRELL SCOTT, NATIONAL DIVERSITY COALITION PRESIDENT: Well, it seems as if Comey, even in his communication with us. He was rather intimidated by the president. I mean, for you -- for a man to go to another man.

TIMPF: A tall man. A very, very tall man.

SCOTT: . don't leave me alone in the room with him, as if he's very intimidated by him, I mean, to be honest. Comey should just have the stones to refuse or either say I don't want to speak to you alone, take somebody with me, rather than to just it seems like Comey is the head leaker out here. How's your own testimony leaked the day before you even testified.

TIMPF: I wonder, Eboni, does this kind of interfere with Trump's life tweeting plans tomorrow or not?


WILLIAMS: I also don't know how happy a President Trump was if this kind of rains on the parade. We're going to talk about it certainly in the show about the announcement of his nominee to be the new FBI director because that was kind of the new story of the day.

BOLLING: Let's also not forget, Andrew, that this was a big smoking gun that James Comey took extensive extemporaneous notes, and one of the notes he took was after a meeting with Donald Trump, or after dinner with Donald Trump. Washington Post and the New York Times went ballistic about this saying, hey, we've got him, now. We've got him because there's an extemporaneous notes. I'm reading this and he talks about the notes he takes after these meetings. And every single one of these meetings in the notes, he talks about, none of them rise to the level of illegality, nor high crimes, or misdemeanors.

ANDREW STEIN, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the president had a good day today, and we'll have a good day tomorrow, because at the end of the day, there's really nothing here. You know, you read Comey's letter, which I read quickly before I went on the air, and I don't see anything that specifically says that he deliberately tried to impede the investigation. So I think that if you look at James Clapper in Australia yesterday, he said that this was the worst scandal since Watergate. What scandal?

BOLLING: I think we have that sound bite. Can you do that producers? You have that sound bite of Clapper. Here it comes.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I think, you compare the two that Watergate pales really in my view compared to what we're confronting now.


TIMPF: I think that comparison to how it's the same or different than Watergate always has been and always will be useless. Just because no matter what's happening, who cares? I care what's happening now. It's not going to be the exact same or exact different, who cares.

BOLLING: And by the way, insane to compare the two. In Watergate, you had people admitting guilt to crimes. We had actual crimes in Watergate. This, so far, as Hillary would call it, a nothing burger.

WILLIAMS: And you know what, I will say this, Jim Comey does it again, gives us a bunch of buildup, right, just like we saw with the Hillary investigation, so much buildup, everyone from both sides with their popcorn with bated breath, as the kids say where's the tea, where's the tea, and how anti-climactic, right, Kat? I mean, this is such a moment where people from the left, people from the right, have such anticipation as to what's going to come out of James Comey's mouth. And if this are the pages any indication, I suspect not very much.

TIMPF: To an extent, yes. There are things about it that bother me. I'm not saying that they've reached the level of obstruction.

WILLIAMS: What bothers you, I'm very curious.

TIMPF: It's inappropriate to even suggest about stopping an investigation. It could very well be that Trump was doing it for personal reasons and then you get out of it because Comey said he wasn't doing anything previously for political reasons, which makes those two different. I'm really interested to see how the testimony goes tomorrow still. People are going to be trying really, really hard to make this an obstruction thing. It's certainly not a collusion thing.

WILLIAMS: Can I ask the pastor something. Let me ask you this, pastor. So many people, and we talked about this on the program yesterday, this issue of the independence of the FBI, and how historically that's been an independent part of the executive branch, not to be usurped by even the sitting United States president. So much of what Kat talks about in terms of disturbing and uncomfortable, I think is Comey describing that, describing what he feels was the president trying to maybe intimidate him out of that objectivity, out of that independence. What say you to that claim of that level of intimidation? And if so, is that appropriate?

SCOTT: Well, with Comey having been retained by President Trump, he would expect a certain degree of loyalty and commitment to his administration simply because I chose to retain you, when everyone suggested for him to fire him. And I think he thought long and hard about it. But I also believe that Mr. Trump is not afraid to rectify what he believes our mistakes. So rather than saying I shouldn't have hired Comey in the first place, he just fired him. But I think he shouldn't have hired him in the first place.

TIMPF: Well, I do think the fact that he did fire Comey after this conversation said anything about -- people might use that also. I mean, I don't think it's fair to call it a complete nothing burger. There're certain things I have questions about.

BOLLING: Like what?


SCOTT: Comey seems like he has become the martyr now for the Democratic Party though.


SCOTT: He's a martyr now. When did James Comey become a martyr?

BOLLING: James Comey, prior to this, was, A, first of all, he was a beloved by the Republicans when he said Hillary Clinton -- sorry, first of all, he was beloved by the Democrats when he said there should be no indictment, right. And then he was hated by the Democrats and loved by the Republicans when he said, yeah, but let's look into this email scandal because we found some on Anthony Weiner's, right. So he's been back and forth, back and forth. He's been the political animal over the last six months. He's getting what he deserves.

SCOTT: I believe he's going to get a good book deal out of it.

TIMPF: All right. Well, up next, today's testimony from four top intel chiefs over Russia and President Trump bursting a bubble for Democrats and the left. Stay with us.


BOLLING: The opening act for James Comey's testimony tomorrow proving a letdown for Democrats and the left-wing media. Four top intel chiefs faced the Senate Intel Committee today. And the head of the NSA and director of national intelligence dumped a ton of cold water on reports of interference from the Trump White House over the Russian probe and intelligence matter. Take a listen.


ADM. MIKE ROGERS, NSA DIRECTOR: In the 3-plus years that I have been the director of the national security agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believed to be illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate. And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.

DAN COATS, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR: I've never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in the political way.


BOLLING: After hearing those responses, the committee's Democrats sounded more like a swarm of angry bees for the remainder of the hearing. Listen to these.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: Let me just tell you, I've just listened to somebody who should have known better talking about unmasking in a political sense, that it's done politically. And that of course is not the case.

SEN. RON WYDEN, D-ORE.: I think that is a very, very damaging position to stake out. We're going to battle it out in the course of this.

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH, D-NM.: I think your unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes.

SEN. ANGUS KING, I-MAINE: What you feel isn't relevant, admiral. What you feel isn't the answer. The answer is why are you not answering the questions.

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: That is what the questions are being asked about. Reports that nobody is laid to rest here, that the president of the United States has intervened directly in an ongoing FBI investigation, and we've got no answer from any of you.


BOLLING: All right, Kat, I want to get to you on this 702 re-upping and that what's that hearing was supposed to be about. But Eboni, first with you on the -- you know, Admiral Mike Rogers kind of slam the door very early in that hearing saying, three years I've been around here and not one instance of it.

WILLIAMS: You know, Eric, and I saw a look of disdain on his face because these are men that operate with a high level of integrity. That's why they take these jobs. That's why they're proud to do them. And I think even the suggestions coming from some of these senators that they were somehow manipulated or coheres, I think he found offensive, is my read on that. And I think that when some of these senators didn't get the answer that they were looking for, and you have the problem, Eric, when you ask a question within intended or anticipated answer and then you don't get what you want, you get all frustrated and it shows.

BOLLING: Yeah. And Kat, and so this whole hearing was supposed to be a hearing whether we should re-up section 702 of the FISA act, which is really, really important, I think this -- most people on that committee, probably both sides bipartisan, agree with re-upping it, but they spent most of the day on the Russian probe.

TIMPF: Yeah, absolutely. Well, because that was like the pregame for tomorrow's party, right. It's going to be a very, very long, long, long party. People -- it's going to be the same kind of attitude. You kind of saw what I think tomorrow's going to look like with Comey. And again, it's correct that until this stuff has gotten out of the way, other things are going to be harder. I don't think it would have been the same if James Comey's testimony hadn't been tomorrow.

BOLLING: Let me ask you, pastor, one of the things I was hoping to hear today because on this 702 FISA re-upping was one of the issues that happen was during the course of the last year, Mike Flynn's name not only got unmasked, it got leaked, and the reason why they were talking to these people in the first place, how do we stop it so regular Americans names don't get leaked. We didn't hear much of that.

SCOTT: No we didn't. And it's an issue that they don't seem to want to address. I see a lot of proof texting. I'm my field, proof texting is when you begin with a conclusion and then you search for evidence to support conclusion. And the evidence might not necessarily be there, so you try to force detach or different isolated scripts into your conclusion. They become the conclusion. Trump interfered with the election. Now, let's look for the evidence to support that. Rather than allowing the evidence to lead to conclusion, they begin with the conclusion and look at evidence. And Flynn's coming up, they're trying to tie it all together to get President Trump.

TIMPF: I do think that that's clear, and I think the reason that that's clear is people are already calling for his impeachment before there was even anything at all whatsoever. I don't think that means there possible couldn't be, but it makes their intent clear at least to me.

BOLLING: Right. Let's do this Andrew. We're going to get to you in a second. But leaks and unmasking also played a big role in today's hearing and it led to this remarkable exchange between Senator Marco Rubio and NSA director, Admiral Mike Rogers.


SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA.: Did -- under the Obama administration was there a significant uptick in efforts by incidents of unmasking from 2012 to 2016.

ROGERS: I don't know that. I have to take that for the record.

RUBIO: Who would know that?


BOLLING: All right. Unmasking, one issue, Eboni, we've kind of go back and forth on this. How much of unmasking is legal not, certainly not legal to leak names when they're unmask though.

STEIN: Well, first of all, I want to address this issue of Russia interference in the election. Obama interfered in the Israeli election, I mean, it really interfered. He sent people there. He sent a lot of money to defeat Netanyahu. Clinton did the same thing in the first Netanyahu election. We murdered Allende, the CIA did, and sort of admitted so.

BOLLING: But we don't want Russians or anyone else meddling in ours.

STEIN: We don't. But there's no proof that they've done it, and I don't think they have. There's no proof that they have. And, you know, all these issues, the Democrats and the mainstream media are going so crazy, but show me the proof, Eric. There's no proof that anything really happened in any of these instances. Where's the proof that Russia is.


WILLIAMS: I'm joking. But Andrew, you're making an argument that is factually absolutely accurate that Eric has made time and time again, which is we can talk about questions, we can talk about investigations, but up until this point, there's certainly no evidence to make that conclusion or support it.

BOLLING: Kat, let me just talk you a little bit about this 702 act, the FISA act, 702 section. It allows us to go -- when foreign actors, bad actors, allows us to gather intel, digital intel, communication between them. But when there's incidental contact between a foreign bad actor and an American, a U.S. citizen, it's supposed to remain masked unless absolutely necessary.

TIMPF: Well, the standard is if it provides, quote, some value to foreign intelligence officials, foreign intelligence officials, which is obviously very broad. So whenever we talk about this, we're usually talking about a political context. You're conservative, you're talking about let's get Loretta Lynch in trouble. If you're a Democrat, let's get Trump in trouble. We need to talk about -- that's OK, that standard in my opinion is too broad. Let's take a look at that overall.

BOLLING: You want that.

TIMPF: I would like to have that looked at.

BOLLING: And removed?

TIMPF: I would like to have that looked at, at least narrowed.

BOLLING: Got you. All right, President Trump names his new choice for FBI director. Can it help the president gain the upper hand against the left's Comey hysteria? We'll be right back with that.


WILLIAMS: So even with all these new developments surrounding the upcoming testimony of James Comey, President Trump nominated his pick to lead the FBI today, Christopher Wray. The president is receiving praise for his pick, but Fox's own Judge Andrew Napolitano has an interesting take on the nod.


JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: This also indicates to me a little bit of a rift between the justice department and the White House because this is not somebody that was interviewed by Jeff Sessions or Rod Rosenstein. This person was interviewed by the president.

Meaning all people that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general interviewed on a Saturday and Sunday at the president's instructions, he was not on that list. And he was the last person the president interviewed.

STEVE DOOCY, CO-HOST: Well, what do you make of that?

NAPOLITANO: That the president decided to make this decision on his own, irrespective of what his team at the Justice Department decides.


WILLIAMS: So how will the president's pick impact the issues surrounding the Trump administration and, perhaps more importantly, the Russian probe? Eric, is this a disruption decision made by the president here or...?

BOLLING: I was going to ask you this, Eboni, because when I heard this morning and looked into Christopher Wray's background, he's a career litigator. Right? So he -- it could be seen as -- Trump could have found someone a lot more political, a lot more friendly to Trump. Christopher Wray worked for -- for the Bush White House, as well. Right?


BOLLING: It seems like it would be the most acceptable FBI director if Trump were trying to be apolitical for an FBI director.

WILLIAMS: So it's so interesting, Eric. So on one hand, I agree totally, he is definitely nonpolitical. Never held an elected office. Spent his whole career at the DOJ or in private sector legal practice.

But there's this name that comes up when you look up this guy, and it's Chris Christie. And so some people are going to want to connect those dots. And my question to both you, Kat, and really the whole panel -- Andrew and Pastor -- how do you think the Chris Christie connection plays into this, for some people?

TIMPF: Well, it's larger than Chris Christie. It's, you know, reported that he's donated to Republican candidates in the past.

However, he didn't donate during the 2016 election. He's given to people like John McCain, for example. And if you're someone who's going to sit there and say that, because he donate John McCain, that means he's going to be impartial [SIC] towards Trump, then you're just really not paying attention at all. So if anything, if he donates Republican for the past, not in 2016, that suggests that he wouldn't be a fan of President Trump. I don't think that that's something to be concerned about.

Of course, everyone's going to find a problem. I saw a piece in "The Rolling Stone" today that said the fact that Trump nominated him means there shouldn't even be a hearing. He's nominating the person to be investigating him.

WILLIAMS: Ridiculous, right?

TIMPF: It's not just up to him, no matter what.

WILLIAMS: Yes, but Pastor, I mean, for those that have the Chris Christie concern, that say, "Well, we know that Christie was an early surrogate of the president. We know that Christie himself is a little bit too hot on the block, so to speak, to put it to the administration, by most standards. But this was Christie's defense lawyer, and maybe this is somehow connected"?

SCOTT: Well, I think it's just a recommendation. Christie has been a friend of President Trump's, and he simply said, "I know a guy. I know a guy that I think you should interview and see if you like them. I like him. I think you might like them."

To be honest, right now anybody is in upgrade over Comey. Barney Fife is an upgrade over Comey right now. And whoever President Trump picks is going to invite scrutiny. If Elliot Ness came back from the dead, and he appointed him, you would have his critics say, "He just did that because he came back from the dead."

So I'm comfortable with this. I think it's all right.

WILLIAMS: Andrew -- and one thing I do like about this pick is he's also the prosecutor in the Enron big scandal. And a lot of people said that they were too big to prosecute, but here you have this attorney going after them and being successful.

STEIN: You know, he's got impeccable credentials. And I think -- I know Donald Trump since '73. I think he wants to always get the best people. But can I say something personal about him?

You know, people don't realize this, because he's so controversial with the Democrats in the mainstream media. But when Bob Kraft, our friend from the New England Patriots' wife was dying, he called him every day.

When David Friedman, who's now ambassador to Israel's wife passed away, he spent three hours in a car going out to Nassau County so he could make the Shiva.

When my dad was sick, he was incredibly kind.

So you know, people don't see that about Donald Trump. You know, they just see the -- the stereotype the Democrats portray. And he is a controversial character. But there's a warmth there and a loyalty to people that he -- that he really likes that I've seen on a personal level, that I don't think many people see.

TIMPF: I haven't seen it, and I still liked his pick. So there you go. I think it's good. He's had national security experience.

STEIN: Sorry to go off the track a bit.

WILLIAMS: That's fine.

TIMPF: Federal investigative experience. He also was overseeing operations after 9/11. So he works well in a crisis.

STEIN: He's very qualified.

BOLLING: I would love Trey Gowdy to have been that pick, and I know he said he wanted to pull himself out of that mix. But I would tell you, you lean on him and say, "The country needs you, Trey. Go get him."

WILLIAMS: He's a heck of a prosecutor.

STEIN: I would have liked to have seen Ray Kelly, too.

WILLIAMS: ISIS launching a stunning suicide attack on the heart of Tehran today, and the Iranian government is now blaming the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. What? Stay with us. We'll be back.


TIMPF: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Andrew Stein and Pastor Darrell Scott. Let's continue the conversation.

ISIS striking two of Iran's most powerful symbols in brazen terror attacks today: Iran's parliament building; and the tomb and founder of Iran's revolution. At last 12 people are dead, dozens more wounded.

Bizarrely, Iran's Revolutionary Guards are blaming the United States and Saudi Arabia for having a role in spawning the attack. Does this mean that Iran will respond by trying to further destabilize things in the Mideast?

This is what makes relations in these areas so tough. This is a perfect example of why it's so tough.

BOLLING: So, you know, it's like the kid who smokes while he works in the fireworks factory. Right?

So Iran is, like, the state sponsor of terror globally. Has Hamas, Al Qaeda, almost any -- the Muslim Brotherhood, almost any major terrorist group has been funded at least in part by Iran. Right? And so now one time there's an attack and now, all of a sudden, they're blaming us for an attack on -- on -- you know, a very low-level attack. But boy, I've got to tell you, crying wolf in the wrong place.

WILLIAMS: Exactly. Like they are not the people to ever make that argument. I don't know how in the world you expect anybody in the world to empathize with you when, like Eric said, you are the primary sponsor of terrorism across the globe. So you just -- they're just not in a position to make this argument anywhere I can see.

STEIN: Trump is doing a good thing by bringing Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states in an alliance against ISIS and against Iran. So I think his Mideast trip was really successful.

SCOTT: Well, you know, blaming...

STEIN: And he's arming the Kurds.

SCOTT: Blaming has become an international activity anyway. I mean, blaming in America is rampant. No one wants to take responsibility for anything that's perceived as negative. And now that mindset has spread across the globe. And so now it's extended even to this terrorist activities.

Even though terrorists don't believe that they're terrorists. You know, a lot of people call the terrorists religious fanatics. They're not necessarily religious fanatics. They're religious zealots. And they are so fundamental in their literal interpretation of the Koran that they think that -- they have such faith in the promises of the reward for jihad and martyrdom that they're willing to give their life for it.

TIMPF: At the same time, I think it's absolutely true that sometimes when you decide who is the most credible source, you -- even if it's subconsciously, think "Who's the source that's telling me what I most want to believe?" So that makes it a little more...

WILLIAMS: I want to ask the pastor this about the issue of ideology. And kind of from the religious standpoint.

SCOTT: Right.

WILLIAMS: Because you know, like you said, you know, religious fanatics, and there was a time where sometimes terrorists felt like they were doing something in the name of. But with this type of terrorism we're seeing now, pastor, there is no "in the name of." I mean, in the name of jihad, but it's just destroying our way of life by any means.

SCOTT: But they're doing it not in the name of jihad; they're doing it in the name of Islam. Islam means submission, but it doesn't mean just...

WILLIAMS: But you never see anything in the Koran about destroying an entire Western civilization.

SCOTT: Islam doesn't mean submission in the sense of submitting one to another, as the Bible says. Islam means submission to Allah by any means necessary. And so...

WILLIAMS: But where are they getting that part, though, Pastor, that that means destroy our way of life?

SCOTT: In the Koran, that says death to infidels. And so when they hold to a literal interpretation of the Koran, and they're zealous in their religious fervor, and they look forward to the afterlife and the rewards of the afterlife, rather than the disenfranchisement of this present life. I mean, it's understandable, if you're in their situation, and you believe the way they do, why they do what they do; and they don't see anything wrong with it.

BOLLING: It's an interpretation.

WILLIAMS: An interpretation, right?

BOLLING: And a radical interpretation at that. And by no means do -- does anyone suggest that it's a majority or even a large minority.


BOLLING: It's -- it's -- but remember this.

WILLIAMS: But that's all it takes.

BOLLING: There's 1.6 billion Muslims in the world world. If 90 -- if 50 percent are absolutely peace-loving Muslims and another 24 -- 49 percent are moderate, and they don't -- they have no opinion one way or the other. If 1 percent of Muslims in the world are radicalized, it's 16 million.

SCOTT: I will say this. I will say this. For everyone that acts, there are ten that believe the same way.

STEIN: There was a poll...

SCOTT: They just don't act on it.

STEIN: There was a poll in London -- I think it was a Gallup poll -- about four years ago which showed that 29 percent of the Muslims in London believed in jihad. That's scary.

TIMPF: All right. We've got to...

SCOTT: Believing in it and acting on it are two different things.

TIMPF: We've got to leave it there. We've got to leave it there, guys.

A new report says Russian hackers may have planted a fake story on Qatar's state news website, helping lead to the diplomatic crisis between the Gulf state and the U.S. and other Arab countries.


BOLLING: All righty. Time to "Wake Up, America." A bloody week in Great Britain and carnage marking the start to Ramadan appears not to be a coincidence. Britain's MI-5 is tracking 500 active investigations right now with some 23,000 potential jihadists feared operating throughout the country. Yet liberals say nothing is wrong.

Liberals like HBO's John Oliver suggest Britain isn't worried about terror. He calls people like me out, people who warn that importing the Euro style of political correctness is somehow Islamophobic. Here's John Oliver just hours after the latest terror attack on British soil.


JOHN OLIVER, HOST, HBO'S "LAST WEEK TONIGHT": Honestly, it was an uplifting demonstration of quintessentially British defiance. Because the British people are never going to let terror change their way of life. And if you need proof of this, just look at this footage of people being evacuated from the scene.

You see the one guy there? He refused to leave his pint of beer behind. That is a one-man walking "Keep calm and carry on" poster.


BOLLING: Sorry, John Oliver. Real Brits are actually worried. You know, the ones who travel without security details on the tube, on the Metro, walking the Westminster Bridge, sight-seeing or sharing a pint with their friend? They fear more terror. Ramadan still has 17 days to go.

Look, not all Muslims are evil, but there sure seems to be many who have radicalized.

And understand this, John. Being stuck on stupid and pretending everything is OK isn't proud or British or tough. It is just what I said, it's stupid. So your fake outrage, invective comments, getting a few laughs from the audience won't fix the problem. Political correctness went wrong in Europe and became deadly. Let's not copy them, and let's not pretend everything is OK, because it's not.

Terror has a stronghold in Europe, and it's creeping towards our shores, so let's stop it before it gets here.

And to John Oliver, just because you have a British accent, doesn't mean you speak for average Brits anymore, because I have spoken to them, and they are worried about the can of worms Europe has opened. And emphasis on worms.

But for John Oliver, Mr. Regular Brit, your limo is waiting outside the HBO studios. The driver has the door open, and your security detail is ready to escort you. You, a regular Brit? Not bloody likely.

Pastor, your thoughts on that? Now, a little bit harsh on John Oliver, but look, this idea that "Everything is going to be OK and terror; don't worry. Terror isn't going to affect us" is deadly.

SCOTT: Yes, it is. Listen, you can't be so politically correct that you're socially incorrect. And that's what's going on right now. You can't -- you can't compromise the good of the whole because of the ideas of a few.

Now, he wants to convince -- or he wants to, again, convince society everything is all right. Don't worry about a thing; go about business as usual. No need to watch out. No need to look. We're going going to be all right. This is just some few isolated attacks.

No. It's happening on a more and more frequent basis. It's going to get worse, not better. He better lock it down, and he better watch out.

BOLLING: Eboni, John Oliver, like I said, security detail, well-armed, I'm sure. Does he speak for regular people: regular Brits or Americans?

WILLIAMS: I mean, look, easy for him to say. Let's talk about what at least Americans are saying. So I've got two really good friends, Eric. They turn 35 this year, two of my college girlfriends. Both married. So we're going to take this big international trip. And they are both working on families, so they can't travel to zika places, so we're looking at Europe. And one of them wants to go to Paris. Her husband says flat out, "Absolutely not. It is not safe."

And this is the reality, Eric, that most Americans and I do think, I'm sure, many Brits and many French people, are experiencing, whether you like what's going on, whatever -- it's not a political conversation anymore. This is a matter of survival at this point.

BOLLING: So Kat, so is the -- and open it up to a bigger picture. So what they've done in Europe is allowed open borders. They've allowed -- they've taken in a lot of refugees, a lot of people that travel from country to country. It became dangerous. Isn't it the point we're trying to make: let's not become like Europe?

TIMPF: I have said zero times that I ever, ever want what we do in this country to become like it is in Europe. I have absolutely never said that. So yes, I agree with you there.

I also think that Europe, because it's different, does have problems that we aren't -- do not have and that we need to be careful to not have.

I don't, in general, when it comes to terrorism as a whole, maybe not in Europe but let's say here -- I don't think -- what is the good in talking about how afraid we are? Right? They want us to be afraid. That's what makes them happy, makes them dance around.

BOLLING: So we don't allow the same political correctness, weak-on-terror ideology.

TIMPF: I'm very antipolitical correctness, by the way, very anti-that. I think that's different than saying you're afraid.

BOLLING: Well, I mean -- I mean, OK. So Andrew, let me ask you this. What is New York doing differently than London is doing? Because we haven't had that awful, you know, terror attack perpetrated here yet.

WILLIAMS: Thank God.

STEIN: Well, I think our -- first of all, our -- Ray Kelly did a fantastic job in surveilling the mosques. And David Cohn, too, our head of -- head of intelligence and terrorism. They both did a terrific job. Bratton did a good job.

And also, in -- our -- the Muslim community is much more integrated in here than it is in Europe. In Europe and France and Britain, there are separate areas there where people just don't go, even the cops. So we're a much more integrated society. I think our guys are more on the ball, our intelligence people.


STEIN: And New York Police Department. And thank God we haven't had the problems they've had. Also remember, in Britain, it's a lot larger, and France, a lot larger percentage of the population than it is, let's say, in New York.

WILLIAMS: All right. One quick thought?

SCOTT: There's a difference between fear and caution. If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of caution.

BOLLING: All right. We'll leave it right there. When we come right back, we "Circle Back" with our specialists, Andrew Stein and Pastor Darrell Scott. So go away -- don't go away.


WILLIAMS: Let's "Circle Back" with our specialists today, Mr. Andrew Stein and Pastor Darrell Scott.

All right, Pastor, I'm going to start with you.


WILLIAMS: Take us home. You know how to close. Favorite scripture. I know there's tons, but give me your favorite one.

SCOTT: Better -- better is one hand full with quietness than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.

WILLIAMS: Amen. All right.

Andrew, for you this is my quick question. You were the youngest to ever serve in the New York...

STEIN: State Assembly.

WILLIAMS: ... State Assembly, 23 years old. Intimidated or was that just you getting started?

STEIN: Well, first of all, I think politics was a lot more -- it was tough but a lot easier in those days. You didn't have the social media. You didn't have the Internet. And there was -- it was more fun.

So I -- I had a great time. I loved it. And you know, I always wanted to be in politics. I grew up, you know, idolizing Bobby and Jack Kennedy. And it was -- it was a thrill. And it was -- it was -- when I think about it, I was really young. I was 23. I must have been -- had somebody watching over me.

BOLLING: My "Circle Back" is for Pastor Scott. While I was delivering that monologue, the "Wake Up, America," I saw the pastor peripherally shaking his head "yes" and "no," and you said something to me the break. You said what about terror?

SCOTT: It's going to get worse; it's not going to get better. You know, I look at things from a different standpoint. I look at it from a biblical standpoint. And according to my eschatological interpretations, it's going to get worse. Then it's going to get better for a minute, then it's going to get worse again. Then Jesus is coming back.

TIMPF: Would you have any advice for James Comey tomorrow? I know Trump just said, "Good luck." What advice do you give him?

BOLLING: Good luck.

TIMPF: Kind of great.

SCOTT: Man up.


SCOTT: Man up, James.

Oh, and go Cavs. Cleveland Cavaliers tonight.

BOLLING: Do you know if the Cavs win one game, it might be a miracle on your watch?

SCOTT: The Cavs are going to win this series. You heard it here first.

WILLIAMS: I'm fighting a losing battle. I told the pastor before the show get his broom out.

SCOTT: Go, Cavs.

WILLIAMS: The sweep is coming.

BOLLING: Steph Curry, oh, my God.

WILLIAMS: Steph Curry for the shot, Pastor.

BOLLING: I mean -- good.

SCOTT: Jeff "Double Dribble" Dirge (ph). Double dribble, is throwing them up.


STEIN: I'm a passionate Patriots fan. During football season.

WILLIAMS: Here we go. Thank you to our "Fox News Specialists" today, Andrew Stein and Pastor Darrell Scott.

And thank you for watching. And make sure you follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on both Facebook and Twitter. And remember, 5 o'clock will never be the same. "Special Report" with Bret Baier up 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.