'Locked and loaded': Trump escalates warnings to North Korea

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," August 11, 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 Pete Hegseth and Lisa Boothe who's in for Eboni K. Williams. This is "The Fox News Specialists."

From the double down to the triple down, President Trump dishing out a new round of threats at North Korea. Earlier today, President Trump tweeted out saying that military solutions are, quote, locked and loaded to deal with the rogue state. A short time ago, he responded to questions about what he meant.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think it's pretty obvious. We are looking at that very carefully. And I hope that they are going to fully understand the gravity of what I said. And what I said is what I mean.


TIMPF: President Trump is also issuing a new direct warning to Kim Jong Un.


TRUMP: And this man will not get away with what he's doing. Believe me. And if he utters one threat in the form of an overt threat, which by the way he's been uttering for years, and his family has been uttering for years, or if he does anything with respect to Guam or anyplace else that's an American territory or an American ally, he will truly regret it. And he will regret it fast. OK? Thank you all very much.


TIMPF: And this hour, President Trump is holding a meeting with secretary of state Rex Tillerson, and U.N. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley. We're expecting some fresh remarks from him after it's over, which we'll take to you when it happens. Crazy week, huh, Pete?

LISA BOOTHE, GUEST CO-HOST: There's nothing going on. I'm so board.

PETE HEGSETH, GUEST CO-HOST: The pattern if it's 5:00 on Friday in the summer, then the news will be breaking.

TIMPF: Yeah, absolutely.

HEGSETH: You get to deal with it every day.

TIMPF: Yeah. I love it. I love it. Lisa, what did you think about his tone today? I have no problem, obviously, saying we're going to destroy North Korea if they come to us first.

BOOTHE: Actually, I read something I thought was interesting in the Washington Post of all places, but the title, are we on the brink of nuclear war? Probably not. And it's a quote from David Kang who is the director Korean study at the institute at University of Southern California, trying saying that five times fast. But basically what he's trying to say in his synopsis is that this time isn't any different than the past.

And basically with the U.S. media we keep missing the second part of North Korea's sentence. The first part, if the United States attacks us first then these things will happen. And what he's arguing is the Trump administration also saying the same thing, that if we were attacked then we'll fight back. And right now, both sides are sort of practicing, you know, posturing, deterrence and wanting the other side to believe that we will take decisive action if need be.

HEGSETH: The U.S. is applying for the first time since the previous administration the credible threat of military force. And without a credible threat, without your adversary believing you will act, you don't get any progress in diplomacy. If you really want peace you better be prepared to conduct war. No one ever believed that Obama would do that with Iran, and therefore they moved along and they're progressing to a nuclear bomb, which is a preview by the way. North Korea is a preview of what it will look like when Iran gets a bomb.

It is perpetual blackmail not to draw a real line here. Otherwise, you want to talk about a couple of nukes that can reach our shores today, an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. Try dozens or a hundred pointed at the east coast, you will live under that scrutiny in 2037 if we don't act in 2017. So this administration understands those stakes. They're talking tough because it's about time they do.

TIMPF: I would prefer to not be bombed. All right. Well, it's time to meet today's specialist. She's a psychology expert, a television and radio host, and a member of the Donald J. Trump for president media advisory board, and she specializes in the psychology of politics, Dr. Gina Loudon is here. And he is a New York Times bestselling author, a human rights activist, and a jazz recording artist, and he specializes in music and politics, Mark Steyn is here. All right, Mark, North Korea has been saying this kind of stuff over and over and over again, all the time, but they know Trump doesn't have to the say anything. They know if they came after us his regime is over. Play time is over, party is over.

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR: I'm not sure they do know that, actually. It's interesting to me the way they threatened Guam. There was a story about 20 years ago when the North Korea thing started. It was all in the Canadian papers about how the North Korea's had plans to nuke Montreal because it would show that they were serious, but unlike nuking Cleveland would prompt an American response. And I don't know that in the crazy way they think in Pyongyang, they're not thinking, well, if we threaten Guam which is a U.S. territory it will show that we're serious without provoking the same kind of threat -- responses if we nuke Los Angeles. We're dealing in a world where the most isolated regime on earth is a nuclear power. And that should never have been allowed to happen. So when you see things, as Lisa was saying, the Washington Post headline, are we on the brink of nuclear war with North Korea?

BOOTHE: Great minds thinks alike, Mark. I knew I liked you.

STEYN: Well, don't you know -- what a headline, are we on the brink of nuclear war with North Korea? Probably not. It's always probably not until you wake up, switch on the TV, and there's the mushroom cloud. You know, that's not really good enough, probably not.

TIMPF: So what do we do then, Gina? Do you like what's President Trump is doing now? Does he need to do to more, does he needs to do less? What are your thoughts?

GINA LOUDON, DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT MEDIA ADVISORY BOARD: When you're dealing with a dictator, and we don't even know, to your point Mark, we don't even know that his generals are honest with him, right? We don't know if a general comes to him and says you will lose, right, because the guy has a God complex, let's not forget that.

TIMPF: Oh, yeah.

LOUDON: So they come to him and say you will lose, does he shoot them? What happens to the person who talks truth to him? Because everybody knows dictators surround themselves with yes men. So therefore, you have somebody who really may not be aware that he would actually lose in a nuclear conflict. He might think there's a way to win. That's a very scary part. So yes, I like the way that the president has stepped up, and confronted the bully on the playground, Kat. That's what this really is. This is bully on the playground mentality, and the president is responding appropriately.

BOOTHE: And we know he feeds people to tigers.


TIMPF: I think he does know he will lose. I think he definitely surrounds himself with yes men. But I think that -- that one thing, I do think he knows if he attacked us, it would be suicide.

BOOTHE: But we're also gearing up to even more heightened tensions, right, because in -- just a couple of weeks from now, we're gearing up to have military exercises with South Korea, and that aligned almost with the same timeline that North Korea is threatening Guam. So, you know, I think if we see this sort of rhetoric right now, if we think this is bad now, I mean, it's only going to heighten that much more so here in the coming weeks in those two circumstances.

HEGSETH: Very true, it's only heightened over the last 20 years. Mark, you know the last time there was a credible threat of actions against North Korea militarily was 1994 under Bill Clinton. Since then we've tried sanctions, resolutions, talks, diplomacy, all the international -- the preferences of the international elite, and the intelligence, and the counsel of foreign relation. You're a student of history, has that ever worked and can that work?

STEYN: No, because broadly speaking the western world likes talking. And talking is the point. So they say, well, we need it get to a point where we're back in active talks with Iran. And for people like Iran and North Korea, the point of talking is to provide a cover for you to get on with your nuclear program, while at the same time sending your house trained be spoked diplomat to sit around the table with Europeans and North Americans pretending to be -- you talk about history, that was the same way it was. I dislike Nazi comparisons, but when you look at a German diplomats in the early 1930's, they were respectable civilized men and they flew around all the chancellery of the world, and people said they seem like reasonable people, so why don't we just carry on talking and doing this and chitchatting, and the world will come to rights. And it doesn't work like that.

TIMPF: Here's my issue, though. People say, OK, we have to do something, we have to go in there, we have to get all this stuff, most experts agree we couldn't find everything, and that would guarantee that they would retaliate. So I think that's where the idea comes from of let's not do that.

HEGSETH: To risk a war. I mean, there are some words worth fighting. Get to a peace -- adjust peace where you're not living under the specter of blackmail the entire time. So, if you do play it forward 20 years, now might look like a pretty darn good time to do something about it. Just like 1994, looks like a great time to have taken a preemptive measure in North Korea when they didn't have nuclear capabilities.

TIMPF: Well, our constitution also doesn't allow for that, though, without consulting congress.

HEGSETH: Well, after 60 days you have to go to congress and get authorization, but the executive has the authority to take an action to protect the United States.

BOOTHE: And I think the difficulty we're facing right now is, one, there are no really good options here, because we know war on the Korean Peninsula could lead to catastrophic losses, as said -- stated by the secretary of defense. And we don't really have a ton of leverage over North Korea as well. So I think that's why we've seen, you know, this increased rhetoric from President Trump because I think he recognizes the fact that we don't have the economic tools like China does with -- you know, controlling 90 percent of the trade with North Korea. We don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. So I think President Trump what he sees is that we have to convince North Korea that we're willing to act if you mess with us. And so, I think that's what we're seeing with sort of this heightened increased rhetoric from the president, also, quite frankly, the secretary of defense in the past couple of days as well.

HEGSETH: It's true. Doctor, on the campaign train there was a lot of talk from this president about China and bad trade deals. And if we want to talk about leverage, China is the one that probably has the most. It's now the time to put the screws to them and say, it's put up or shut up. We know you don't share our interests, but we can find a convergence if we really push.

LOUDON: I think we have to be strong with China, because, again, that part of the world really only understands strength. We've seen it over and over again. You know, if you don't come back as strong, then they're just going to push back even harder, because it is, again, back to that bully on the playground mentality. But here's the thing about China, and this what makes it so complicated and tricky. We even don't really know when they're being completely honest with us, if they're being completely honest with us or not. So it's not like, normally, we can use what is really an ally, this is not that, even if they say something to us, we absolutely no way to know if it's true. So this is -- this is really an international crisis like we've really never seen. We can make comparisons, but there really aren't any for so many reasons.

HEGSETH: China actually wants problems for us there. They want us out of the region.

TIMPF: Yeah, but they don't. They don't, of course, want an all-out war. Well, Guam, of course, standing in the crosshairs of potential North Korea missile attack, and the U.S. territory governor appears to be backing President Trump's hardline rhetoric against the rogue state.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: But I want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding. I feel more confident that if someone is to make a threat to my people, the people of Guam, that my president will say if Guam is attacked, then hell and fury will fall on the attacker.


TIMPF: I wish our leaders wore stuff like that, first of all.


TIMPF: I do. I think we'd all get along better.

BOOTHE: If President Trump is watching, we have a request.



TIMPF: Clothing choices aside. That's interesting, Mark, because a lot of people take the point of view of, hey, this threat only happened after the hyped up rhetoric, but he doesn't seem to see it that way.

STEYN: No, he doesn't see it that way. And it's very real for them. They're dealing with basically 1950's duck and cover exercises now. They're being told, you know, don't look up if there's a big flash in the sky, that's only going to make things worse for you. And this is a very specific thing. This guy who actually hasn't demonstrated he's capable of hitting a barn door says he's going to put four missiles, north, south, east, west of the island like some spectacular choreographed Disney thing. And we are supposed -- and just to Pete's point about a credible military threat, the point isn't whether he acts on that, the point is we can't live in a world where people can get that specific about threats. The threat itself is a provocation, whether or not he acts on it.

HEGSETH: Very much so.

TIMPF: That's interesting. Of course, again, the comment or the threat came after President Trump's comment though.

BOOTHE: No, the threats came when...

TIMPF: They've been going on forever and ever, but the more specific one.

BOOTHE: Especially on the 4th of July. I think that sent a pretty strong message to the United States.

TIMPF: Of course it does. I don't think anyone disputes that.

BOOTHE: But we've seen an increase in these provocations just -- you know, within recent times, so especially under Kim Jong-un. So I don't necessarily think there's a correlation with the rhetoric. I think we're going to see those increased provocations regardless, which is what we've been seeing. I think President Trump is just trying to make it exceptionally clear to North Korea do not mess with the United States of America. I don't think he can get much clearer, but I think that is a point the Trump administration is trying to ultimately make here.

HEGSETH: Yeah. President Trump has great instincts, when he said fire and fury and then -- the North Korea balked at it, he said maybe that wasn't tough enough. And so, they speak the language of toughness, and he's surrounded by advisors who are the definition of understanding what adversaries need to hear. I think this is far more -- he's pushing toward brinksmanship. It's only when you get to a point where someone believes he'll do something. You get a moment of diplomacy or a moment where you can walk them back. It requires a steel spine to do that. And how many steel spines are there in Washington, D.C.? Not a whole lot. Thankfully there's one in the oval office.


TIMPF: To President Trump's credit, Gina, China does seem to be taking this seriously, more seriously that they have been, at least.

LOUDON: Absolutely. We saw with the U.N. vote. I think the one thing that I found -- just a little glimmer of hope today, was that there's so many retired military living in Guam, you know, and many of these people have no fear at all because they understand our military capability. And those who understand it best, who live in Guam, who worked in military forever, if they're not afraid then it tells me that we really are prepared in ways that the average American may not be so aware of.

TIMPF: Well, straight ahead, Susan Rice claiming the U.S. can, quote, tolerate nuclear weapons, North Korea. Because, yeah, you know, we should always trust that lady.



BOOTHE: Well, Susan Rice in all of her wisdom is sounding off about the North Korea nuclear crisis. The former Obama national security advisor publishing an op-ed in the New York Times, writing war is not necessary to achieve prevention. Despite what some in the Trump administration seem to have concluded, history shows that we can if we must tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea. The same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapon during the cold war. Rice followed up on her comments during a CNN interview. Listen.


SUAN RICE, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: We need to be very measured, very careful, very planned in our rhetoric. I hope that we will see more measure out of the administration and out of the president as he approaches this very real challenge.


BOOTHE: Mark, I want to go to you first on this. What's your take on her comments?

STEYN: Well, measured rhetoric for 24 years is what's got us to this point. It's because we've been listening to people like -- Susan Rice and the Susan Rice's of this world have said trust in us for 24 years, and as a result a one man psycho state that has a GDP of $12 billion, which is approximately half of what Mark Zuckerberg has personally made this year so far, seriously, has become a nuclear power. And Susan Rice, everything she says sounds measured and reasonable, but it is in fact idiotic. It is precisely the fact that the five great powers had nuclear weapons, and did have huge arsenals that meant they had no pressure on them to use them. The smaller number of missiles you have the more likelihood there is, because it's a simple use them or lose them situation. So there's more chance of -- Pakistan, for example, using its nuclear arsenal than it is of France. And the idea that North Korea having nuclear weapons is comparable to the Soviet Union having nuclear weapons is just completely absurd. Who's next? Yemen, Somalia? A couple of tribes on the northwest frontier province of the Afghan-Pakistan border...

BOOTHE: Mark, you're so subtle sometimes.



BOOTHE: No, I'm joking. And Pete, I want to get you in here. Obviously, as a veteran and someone who served this country, I mean, can we live, to her point, can we live with a nuclear North Korea?

HEGSETH: No, we can't. I mean, this statement brought to us by the same woman who brought us the Libya debacle. It brought us the Iran deal, which means we've been living in the specter of that and the prospect of wiping Israel off the map. It's almost like they're telling us to live in this new normal where America is not exceptional, where the world is level. It's the same thing they said domestically. Your jobs aren't coming back, 1 percent growth is the new normal, and President Trump rejects that. He says if we are a hyper power, then let's use it. Careful, measured, planned rhetoric is not what you said Mark, nowhere. We shouldn't do anything to tolerate this. I think that's the spirit of what President Trump represents.

BOOTHE: And Kat, I know you don't like President Trump's rhetoric. North Korea has fired 18 missiles during 12 tests since February alone, watching their first ICBM on July 4th. So if you don't like the rhetoric, but what are we supposed to do then to counter that? Because we have had, as Mark has pointed out, we have had a policy of turning a blind eye to this and allowing this to happen. And obviously, they're increasing in the technology, so what are we supposed to do?

TIMPF: First of all, it's not that I don't like any of the rhetoric, there's certain things I think he need to be very, very careful about when it comes to something like that. What are we supposed to do is kind of the question everyone is asking. There really aren't any good answers. This comment was really interesting to me, though, because what they've been saying all along, Obama administration and, of course, Bill Clinton, oh, well, they won't, but they won't. And now it somehow shifted to, yeah, but if they did it would be alright. I want to know what happened in the middle there. That's a really, really big difference.


TIMPF: That will never ever happen. Like, yeah, but like if it chill like they did, don't worry. I feel like there should be something in the middle. I have a lot of questions...

(CROSSTALK) TIMPF: That's what I think, too, Pete. Perhaps they were never serious to begin with.

BOOTHE: I agree with you. I'd like to know that as well. Dr. Gina, I want you to get in here. What's your take on both her op-ed and her comments?

LOUDON: Yeah. I have a two word question for her. It's rather simple, so maybe she'll get it, until when? Until when? At what point do we act? You have somebody who is a life time bureaucrat who has never negotiated the kinds of high pressured deals with foreign people sometimes, by the way, that this particular president has negotiated. He's a perfect time -- he's the perfect president at the perfect time for this exact scenario. He knows how to stand up to a bully. And he understands things that she will never understand about negotiation. How could she possibly when she never had a (INAUDIBLE)

BOOTHE: And Pete, real quick, when do we act is a great question?

HEGSETH: You act when your national security interest are at stake.

BOOTHE: But you can't wait until you've been nuke.

HEGSETH: Exactly. But we're dealing is the ideology of the left which has existed for a hundred years. Woodrow Wilson told us we could win World War II and get peace without -- World War I, peace without victory. The left believes that somehow you can talk your way to that. I said it before I'll say it again, sometimes there's a peace to be found on the other side of conflict. It is up to leaders to decide when that is at issue. And I think with Secretary Mattis and H.R. McMaster, we've got just the right crew to make that decision. No one wants war. But if we have to make the call to secure the American people, then we make the call.

BOOTHE: Well, coming up, fellow senate Republicans rallying around Mitch McConnell and the showdown with President Trump. Will it further endanger the president's agenda? Stay tuned.


HEGSETH: Welcome back to The Fox News Specialists. President Trump's escalating feud with Mitch McConnell sparking Republican colleagues, some of them, to rally around the senate majority leader, among others, Texas senator John Corny is tweeting out his support, writing, quote, passing POTUS' legislative agenda requires a team effort. No one is more qualified than Mitch McConnell to lead the senate in that effort. And moderate senator, Orin Hatch, tweets, Senator McConnell has been the best leader we've had in my time in the senate, and he's been there awhile, through very tough challenges. I support him fully.

So is this push back from senate Republicans something President Trump should worry about? Lisa, I'm going to go with you first. They often time say that amateur's talk strategy, pros talk logistics. You look at the senate come in September. They've got 12 days until they got to raise the debt limit, the same amount of time to get a spending deal to avert a shutdown. President Trump previously tweeted maybe we need a good shut down for our country in September. Not saying that will happen. But what is this back and forth do to the prospect of the agenda President Trump truly wants, he tweets about every day, Obamacare repeal and replace, tax reform and infrastructure.

BOOTHE: Well, I do wonder what conversation are happening behind closed doors, and if some of this is a little bit posturing. I mean, it is problematic. Look, Republicans could get both healthcare and tax reform done on a party line basis through the reconciliation process, which is what, you know, they alluded and said that they wanted to do. Clearly, they couldn't get it done on healthcare. And my biggest concern, if you look at something like tax reform which I feel would be the best thing for Republicans in terms of seeking reelection in both 2018, as well for the president seeking reelection in 2020. Particularly, in what it could do in sort of boosting the economy, which is going to be a big driver for President Trump if it's going well. But you already look at disagreements we've seen previously like the border adjustment tax for instance. And you have groups like Americans for Prosperity putting up a six figure ad buy, Paul Ryan supporting it. Granted I think that has now subsided, but we're going to see the same ideological differences that we saw in healthcare rear its head in the tax reform debate as well.

HEGSETH: And, Kat, what do grassroots conservatives think when they see or have saying, this is the best leader -- Senate Majority Leader we've ever had and he couldn't get us to 50 votes.

TIMPF: I think they're thinking probably not. I'm going to say --


TIMPF: But, it's just ridiculous. It's just blaming all over the place and the bottom line is, I don't think they're going to be able to get anything, John, because the GOP, they don't know who they are anymore.

This health care bill, what the best they could do, what the liberal bill, it wasn't even a conservative bill. It was a bailout plan. And then there's a couple people that are still actually believing in free market solutions in the GOP and then there's a couple people that are actually Democrats. They're essentially Democrats.

I don't think that they're going to be able to come together on anything. I don't see it happening, no matter how much time they have. So, they've instead resorted to just blaming each other which is such a great use of my tax dollars. I'm so glad I'm paying these people. Hooray, hooray, hooray.

HEGSETH: Put that mark to that point. What's been interesting is, it's the moderates who have been most -- been unhelpful, you're Collins, you're Murkowskis, you know, you're McCains --

STEYN: Right.

HEGSETH: -- you know, voting it down. Whereas, you're Cruzs, you're Pauls, or at least, you're Rubios have come to play the Freedom Caucus in the House. Where does this blame lay? And can Mitch McConnell ever get it done?

STEYN: Well, I think -- I don't think Mitch McConnell can get it done, just to get that out of the way quickly. But I didn't think there is a substantial chunk of people in the Senate and the House who actually have no reason to see Trump. They've concluded they have no interest in seeing Trump's populism succeed. And I think a lot of the House and Senate leadership thought that what Trump wanted to do was get elected.

And that once he'd been elected, they could turn him into a Jed Bush or a John Kasich and he'd just be a normal Republican president and that's never going to work. They can stand or fall on how they implement on whether or not they're able to implement the Trump agenda. But the idea that they can they can turn him into Jed Bush with Kim Jong-un rhetoric is never going to work.


HEGSETH: And would that be beneficial? You know, in 2016, two senators kind of run equivocal on President Trump, former Senator Kelly Ayotte and former Senator Joe Hack.

STEYN: Right.

HEGSETH: Isn't going to help senators in 2018 to run from this president? Or wouldn't it be if they advance his agenda and it gets passed, it helps them too?

LOUDON: Yes, because the American people are going to hold them accountable because they've been here for longer if they've had seven years to put things together. The president has had 200 days. So, let's keep that in perspective while we're deciding where the blame lies.

The swamp is not going to voluntarily drain itself. And so, I think that when you put that overlay on anything we're looking at right now, any of these potential conflicts back and forth of blame game and everything, the honest person in this becomes rather apparent. This president is trying to make changes that the American people asked for when they elected him. And anyone who is opposing him is trying preclude what the American people asked for.

TIMPF: And what they said they could give the American people, they all ran on. Vote for us, repeal and replace and then they just said thanks and now they're on vacation.

LOUDON: Right.

STEYN: Right, right.


STEYN: Now, we just need another eight years and then we'll finally be on top of it.

HEGSETH: We need 10 more Republican senators and then we're good.

STEYN: Yes, yes.

HEGSETH: Wouldn't our generational conservative moment --

TIMPF: I don't, I mean, I've embarrass myself pretty bad in my life at certain times, never as badly as the GOP Congress has with this whole debacle.

HEGSETH: We'll see.

TIMPF: I'm -- I'd probably have.

HEGSETH: If we all have. Sure.

All right, coming up, CNN surrenders to the PC police firing its most prominent pro-Trump defender after he mockingly tweets out a Nazi phrase. Back in a moment.


BOOTHE: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Dr. Gina Loudon and Mark Steyn.

Let's continue the conversation.

CNN acting as a hatchet man for the PC police. The network has fired Jeff Lord as most visible pro-Trump analyst after an online spot between Lord and the president of a far less group Media Matters.

Lord was slamming Media Matters effort to silence conservative commentators comparing them to fascist behavior. Lord sent out a tweet mocking their Media Matters' president writing quote "Seig Heil", an infamous Nazi salute. Following an effort from the less online CNN hunt (ph) him with an hours.

Lord however is defending his tweet telling Entertainment Weekly, "Caving to bullies, caving to people who use fascist and Nazi-style tactics to remove people from air is an acceptable. I mocked this guy. Mocking Nazis is OK. That's a good thing, not a bad thing."

Mark, what do you make of this?

STEYN: Yes, I put this in my -- our society is becoming too stupid to survive files because this guy, Jeffrey Lord, was mocking an organization he regards as totalitarian. Media Matters tries to get people fired. They've -- they said something about me last night. They've said something about almost everyone. They have people who are paid to listen to you for the purposes of destroying your career.

And so, he says, "Seig Heil" to them as a way of mocking their Naziness.

It doesn't mean he's secretly sitting in his basement dressed as a noble group in Fiera (ph) from 1943 playing Nazi. It's actually -- and he's right. It's a joke. It's the same thing as if Pete says to me, hey, Steyn go and get me a cup of coffee. And I go, yes, both are mine Fiera (ph). And they decided to fire me over that.

And actually, when we get to the point where you're being fired for stuff like this then we are simply too stupid. We're saying now bad words, mean words, you used them in a joke, you're dead. Your career is over. CNN should be ashamed of themselves.

BOOTHE: Well, and Kat, I want to get you in here because I know you pens a column for the "National Review" over the Kathy-Griffin incident. So, what's your take on this?

TIMPF: OK. Well a lot of people are saying that this is a First Amendment issue, which should isn't. The First Amendment protects you against government retaliation for your speech, not against CNN retaliation for your speech. CNN could do absolutely whatever it wants.

Obviously, he was mocking -- he wasn't actually saying, I love Hitler, I'm a Nazi. I don't think anybody actually thinks that. But if CNN wanted to fire them, they have every right to do so.

Generally, not a good idea, kid, if you're watching at home, don't tweet Nazi stuff even if it's a joke. That's probably a good move for your career. But I think anybody, anybody with a brain knows this was a joke. Anybody.

BOOTHE: And I can't even pronounce it.



BOOTHE: I've never said that before. So, Pete, is this just more political correctness from the left or does CNN have a point?

HEGSETH: I think this is a -- I agree with Kat, that generally stay away from Nazi references, just not helpful.

BOOTHE: Just not worth it.

HEGSETH: But the double standard is always glaring. And that -- I'm from Minnesota, "Minnesota Star Tribune" is as liberal as the "New York Times" and CNN is.

One of their head board members, Patricia Lopez tweeted in April of this year, Public Speaking 101, no Hitler analysis ever. Always ends in an apology. Well, two months later -- three months later, she tweets this, this is a liberal head board member, is MAGA, making it great again, the new Heil Hitler? We're seeing more and more Trump sign off this way --

BOOTHE: Right.


HEGSETH: -- Kelly, meaning can General Kelly rips this -- nips this in the bud? I called her out. She didn't apologize. She did delete the tweet but she still works at the --

TIMPF: The answer to your question by the way is no. If you're watching, it's not. Yes.

HEGSETH: Of course. So, to the left, you can't get away with that reference because the implication is that will the right will use fascist?

STEYN: Right.

BOOTHE: Sometimes taking your own advice is very good.


HEGSETH: She didn't take your own advice and she's not fired yet, in this instance, the double standard applies.

BOOTHE: Well, Gina, I want to get you in here. What is your take on this?

LOUDON: I, honestly, I wish that the left were as obsessed with actually learning their history and where Nazis is somewhat rooted, which is in the left, not in the right. I wish they would learn that little fact to be obsessed to fact instead of the political correctness. But doesn't this reminds you of the guy that was fired from last week or was it this week early for the man --


LOUDON: Yes, I know. It's the news comes out and say drink it from a fire hose every day. But, honestly, you wonder if he were a leftist who espouse their entire liberal mantra every single day, would he have been fired?

And I would submit to the CNN audience out there, why aren't they jumping to his defense and would they be jumping to his defense saying, oh, this was obviously tongue in cheek, right? If it had been somebody who agreed with their politics, I don't even understand the purpose of media anymore if we're not going to be more honest about these things.

BOOTHE: Well, and to Gina's point and also to Pete's point as well, Mark, if Jeffrey Lord was a liberal, do you think he would meet the same fate?

STEYN: No. And in actual fact, I find that more offensive. As I think about, my dear old mom grew up in Belgium under the German occupation. So she had no childhood because of the Nazis.

And I think it's -- actually what's more offensive is with the example Pete gave where people are seriously arguing that make America great again is the new Heil Hitler, America first is fascist.

If you have no ideas, you're the most tampered generation in history, you have no idea what it's like to lose your childhood, of your cities bombs, to have them occupied, to have your family member. The idea that a guy on the other side that you don't happen to like is this German dictator from 1933 to 1945, is far more offensive than anything Jeffrey Lord said.

BOOTHE: Well, and now Trump had -- or now CNN has no Trump analyst.

STEYN: Right.

TIMPF: Right.

BOOTHE: Well, next up, is "Kat on the Street". Kat takes some time of her busy schedule to hang out with The Mooch. (Inaudible) right here, folks. Stay with us.


TIMPF: Anthony Scaramucci's last day as White House coms director was July 31st. But at Villa Italian Kitchen, The Mooch is still going strong. That's right. They've got their own mooch, so an Italian meal fit for a king or a Kat, like -- that's me. Check it out.


TIMPF: What inspired you to create The Mooch?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, with all the political unrest that's been happening over the last year, we thought it would be best to really have some fun. And what better way is to honor The Mooch with his own dish.

TIMPF: Seems like an unconventional choice, The Mooch?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, who's a bigger meatball than The Mooch, quite frankly?

Those people are surrounded by imported Italian spaghetti with Caesar salad and there's The Mooch.

TIMPF: So, it's very softy. Too softy can get you in trouble, though. Do you think that might be too saucy?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it will go over big for tourists. They're going to want to eat it.


TIMPF: Yes. But that can be good?


TIMPF: Yes. It's a handsome dish for sure?


TIMPF: But I'm worried it won't have enough substance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The meatballs itself will give you the substance. It's a -- no bigger meatball.

TIMPF: How do you know that The Mooch is qualified for lunch?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of, it's a front -- delicious.


ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: You got to get together and, you know, mix it up a little bit.

TIMPF: Would you bring at home to mama?



TIMPF: Yes. Absolutely?


TIMPF: Do you think that's The Mooch is a good representative for America?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is very rich.

TIMPF: Very rich.


TIMPF: Lot of rich moments. That's for sure.

SCARAMUCCI: If she supplies hair and makeup, I will consider it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it ends on the 13th of Sunday. It's only for 11 days.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get it Kat, 11 days.

TIMPF: I get it. Seems almost it's going to be over before it started.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd like to see it in here a little bit longer. The Mooch should be here a lot longer than 11 days.

SCARAMUCCI: I have the stomach and the backbone, no problem.

TIMPF: I'll give The Mooch a whirl. Now, do you need parmesan or is The Mooch cheesy enough on itself?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Mooch is cheesy enough on its own. There's parmesan on the Caesar salad.

TIMPF: This is tremendous. I love it. This is the best spaghetti at Naples ever. I can tell it was made by good people. Very good people.

SCARAMUCCI: I like the team, let me rephrase that. I love the team.

TIMPF: No one's ever going to forget something this saucy. Very, very handsome. Look at this handsome, handsome saucy dish.

SARAMUCCI: Thank you.


TIMPF: All right. Anybody want to -- you know, oh my gosh.

HEGSETH: The Mooch.

TIMPF: I didn't eat lunch or dinner. I've already eaten spaghetti on T.V. once today. So, I mean, I guess technically, I mean --

HEGSETH: Here's to The Mooch.


TIMPF: It's pretty good.

STEYN: And are these actual meatballs or body parts of mooch's enemies?

TIMPF: Yes. You don't really know.

BOOTHE: I hope not.


STEYN: Does this looks like a little bit of Steve Banon and Sean Spicer?

HEGSETH: I believe it's no, you're wrong. I believe it's Ryan Priebus.

STEYN: All right. OK, great. Oh, it's great. I'll have the full Ryan's.

TIMPF: I just want to know why I'm always the one that shows up in the light colored outfit when there's food that this delicious.

LOUDON: Yes. That's scary to me.

HEGSETH: We won't judge it if you spill on yourself

TIMPF: It could happen to me every day.

HEGSETH: Is that really an 11-day promotion?

TIMPF: Yes. It's the last day to get it this Sunday.

BOOTHE: It's a brilliant market.

TIMPF: Yes. So, only 11 days. Just like The Mooch, it's their bucket list.

All right. Well the legend of Anthony Scaramucci is a gift that just keeps on giving, "Saturday Night Live" along Bill Hader delivered his first impersonation of the former White House coms director during his summer edition of the show "Weekend Update" last night.


BILL HADER, ACTOR: Come on, everybody loves The Mooch. You know how you miss me. I'm like human cocaine. You got a little bump of me. I made you feel excited, but I was out of your system too quick. And now you -- now that I'm gone, you're all depressed and edgy and you're trying to figure out how to score some more Scaramooch.


TIMPF: I got to say I don't entirely disagree with the premise of that sketch.

STEYN: I don't -- I think that's a little -- I mean, I say this is a foreigner. But I thought he went a little too, yo, veiny in that. I think actually The Mooch is slightly smoother.

HEGSETH: Sophisticated.

STEYN: Sophisticated.

BOOTHE: Also, The Mooch is going down as a legend.

TIMPF: Yes. He's a guy totally never forgotten.

BOOTHE: He sold SkyBridge Capital for $12 billion. He's foot loss in France. He is a fancy free. He is going on Stephen Colbert on Monday night for an exclusive interview. I think the first interview he's given since he left the White House. I mean, this guy is, at least, probably going to be on dancing with the stars, on Ellen

LUODON: And he has a meatball.


TIMPF: I don't have anything named after me.

LUODON: I would like a meatball named --


HEGSETH: We'll work on that.

STEYN: If he goes on dancing with the stars, though, he should do The Mooch because it sounds like it's a dance craze, where you have smooth moves and then whisper obscenities in your partner's --


LOUDON: -- meatball in each hand and you can name one, Lisa, because she wants a meatball named --


BOOTHE: I'm embarrassed because during the break you are singing you've got The Mooch.

TIMPF: It's very catchy.


HEGSETH: Think about it, those 11 days have maybe the best return on investment you've ever seen.


HAGSETH: He's the national celebrity and a chief of staff fired and you're a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

STEYN: Right.

TIMPF: Absolutely. All right. When, when, when. We've got to say goodbye to our specialists, Gina Loudon and Mark Steyn. Thank you both for joining us.

Up next, it's "Wait, What?" plus special remarks from President Trump on North Korea maybe coming momentarily. So don't go away.


HEGSETH: Welcome back to the "Specialists."

In moments, we'll be hearing from President Trump. He's still in Bedminster. He's following a meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.N Ambassador Nikki Haley. And as soon as we have that, we will bring that to you.

But now, it's time for our last segment today. It is time for, "Wait, What?"

And I will kick things off. I found an article in campus perform today. The new school here in New York City has published an extensive guide on microaggressions. I think we have a screen on that.

We've heard a lot about this, but this goes even further to warn students with such behavior is damaging obviously. Its monuments, artworks, any caricatures that are predominately white or cisgender men and women, for instance, could be deemed an environmental microaggression.

Finally, professors who fail to ask students for their preferred pronouns or assigned too many readings by white cisgender men are likewise considered guilty of microaggression for students.

I'm reminded of one thing in our higher education, a quote by Abraham Lincoln. "The philosophy of the school room in one generation becomes a philosophy of government in the next." They're like people vote for Bernie Sanders since they are taught socialism and cisgenderness.

TIMPF: Yes. Absoultely.

HEGSETH: Oh, and we actually have the president coming out right now, likely to make some remarks following his meeting with the Secretary of State.

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.