Robert Mueller's ties to Comey a concern?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," June 12, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Hey, everybody. I'm Eboni K. Williams, along with Eric Bolling and Kat Timpf. We are "The Fox News Specialists."

Another blockbuster day set for Capitol Hill, attorney general Jeff Sessions will publicly testify in front of the Senate Intel Committee tomorrow afternoon. This is the latest twist in the Russian investigation, and it comes as one of President Trump's biggest supporters raises questions about the integrity of the probe following Jim Comey's testimony last week.


NEWT GINRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: I think this is going to be a witch hunt. I think Comey himself by his own testimony tainted this particular process. You have the director of the FBI deliberately leaking in order to create a special counsel who we're now supposed to believe is going to be this neutral figure. I think that's just nonsense.

I distrust independent counsels. I think that the people Mueller is bringing in are dangerous people, and any Republican who thinks this council is going to be neutral is crazy. It'll be like expecting The Post or the New York Times to be accurate.


WILLIAMS: On the other side, the president's critics such as fired U.S. attorney Preet Bhara, are going full speed ahead over obstruction of justice accusations.


PREET BHARARA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR NEW YORK: I think there's an absolute evidence to begin a case. I think it's very important for all sorts of armchair speculators in the law to be clear that no one knows right now whether there's a provable case of obstruction. It's also true, I think, from based on what I see is a third party and out of government, that there's no basis to say there's no obstruction.


WILLIAMS: All right, Eric, is this just sour grapes?



BOLLING: Trump basically said he was going to -- what is Preet going to do next? Is he going to write a book? Is he going to write -- a run for elected office? So I see why he's doing it. But Newt Gingrich makes a very good point. We've kind of talked about it last week. But think about this for a second, I was thinking over the weekend. All right, so, James Comey in the middle of the night, after he was fired, realizes that he is going to somehow form the dialogue that's going to require a special counsel. So in the middle of the night he gets up and leaked his memo, tells his friend to leak the memo to the New York Times. At that point he's a private citizen. He shouldn't be doing that. It's not his job to get an independent counsel appointed for the Trump case. So it's going to be a witch hunt, I agree with Newt.

WILLIAMS: All right, Kat, but may be Jim Comey thinks this is his patriotic duty to make sure that we have this special counsel appointed, right?

KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: Perhaps, it's possible. And also we're talking about Newt, what he said about this special counsel when it was announced, that this guy was great, honest, integrity, the media better calm down, so it's just this case of deciding how you feel about somebody based on what's politically convenient. It's not a fan.

WILLIAMS: Which day of the week it is, right? So let's meet today's specialists this Monday. She's an entrepreneur, a family law attorney, and a regular on the Fox News Channel, but she specializes is being the best mom ever, Kisha Hebbon is here. And he's a radio talk show host and listed in Talkers Magazine as a heavy hundred for three consecutive years, he's also the author of the book, Liars and Whores, breaking down big government and big business, and he's the current host of his daily talk radio show on KGO 810 San Francisco, but his specialty is everything tech, Ethan Bearman is here. Thank you both for being with us. So, I'll start with you, Ethan. To this point, Kat is referring to a tweet from Newt Gingrich, May 17, 2017, pretty much a month ago. Robert Mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel. He's reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity. Media should calm down now. So which is it for Mr. Gingrich?

ETHAN BEARMAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, of all things Newt Gingrich should know something about special investigators. Remember the 1990's, we spent a lot of time with Kenneth Starr because of special investigators. Who was it? Oh, Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house when all that went down. This is political expediency on the part of Mr. Gingrich, and I leave it at that.

BOLLING: Yeah. But also the -- Newt Gingrich is also -- things have changed since Robert Mueller was originally announced as a special investigator, that he's decided to bring in a lot of extra firepower, so may be -- Newt is entitled to change his opinion about Robert Mueller, is he not? Of course, he is.


TIMPF: And we're entitled to call it out.

WILLIAMS: OK. So to that, Kisha -- so as we say, and I do think Eric is right, he's brought on some team, many of them reported donors to Democratic presidential candidates in the past, but when you talk about integrity, and as attorneys we can speak about this, it's your reputation over a long period of time that one would think would create a notion of integrity and your reputation.

KISHA HEBBON, ATTORNEY: Right, I agree. And I think with this situation, Mueller has a reputation of doing the right thing, and I'm sure he's not going to place himself in a position where he's looked at as having a conflict of interest and not doing anything about it. And one of the things I thought about thinking about this case is that he also has the option to use someone else on his team to deal with the victim part of -- with Comey. He doesn't have to do everything. There's a team of people working with the appointed counsel.

WILLIAMS: Eric, I'm going to take a wild guess here and think that you think Comey and Mueller are homeboys.

BOLLING: Of course, they've worked together in the past.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, absolutely.

BOLLING: For many years.

WILLIAMS: For many years, they did seem like, you know, he was.

BOLLING: Under Clinton administrations, they worked together.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely, yeah. But we do know Comey have enjoyed -- well, actually both of them. I think, Eric, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ethan, or Kisha, or Kat, they both enjoyed bipartisan leadership. They both worked under both Bush and Obama. So I do think that has to speak for something.

BOLLING: President Obama appointed James Comey as FBI director, but they do worked under bipartisan leadership, yeah, but not necessarily in this capacity.

WILLIAMS: OK, fair enough. Fair enough. So let me ask you this, Ethan, if we're looking at this -- OK, let me get you in here, sorry. Looking at this and you want to think that a special prosecutor is the answer because many people thought that was the only way this thing is going to get to the nitty-gritty. If it's not Robert Mueller, who in the world is it at this point that will satisfy both sides of this?

TIMPF: Nobody is going to be satisfied because people on one side want one thing, people on the other side want the other thing. And whoever that special prosecutor is, everyone should only want the truth. That's what everybody should want to come out of it. And if there's something that goes against what that -- that outcome to be, they're going to blame it on the person. That's what politics has been since the beginning of time.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think we should ask Lindsey Graham. President Trump getting some words of caution from his long long-running frenemy, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, over public comments about the Russia probe.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Here's what's so frustrating for Republicans like me. You may be the first president in history to go down because you can't stop inappropriate talking about an investigation that if you were just quiet would clear you. It's frustrating for me to want to help a man who I think will do big things. No other Republican would do.


WILLIAMS: Kisha, does this remind you of clients you have where you just like, can you please do me a favor and zip it.

HEBBON: Yes, that's every lawyer's nightmare when you talk too much.


HEBBON: It definitely is.

WILLIAMS: It hurts you. But, you know, Eric, you've been consistent and saying that the president should keep tweeting, and certainly that his base and many people do want to hear from him, but is there any validity as to what Senator Graham is talking about?

BOLLING: None, none whatsoever.


BOLLING: Never now, not today, not a month ago, not five years ago, not five years from now, or three years when everybody is going for reelection. He's no friend of Trump. He's an anti-Trump from the very beginning.


BOLLING: He and McCain are two anti-Trump. They'll do anything in their way to undermine the Trump presidency. John McCain, over the weekend, said that under President Obama our foreign policy or something to that effect, was better under President Obama than President Trump. I just wish on McCain and Lindsey Graham would just go off into the sunset and enjoy their retirement, 174,000 a grand a year they make, just enjoy their retirement.

WILLIAMS: All right. Well, on that note, I do think that Lindsey Graham - - let's say you taken that a little bit of face value, and you think that maybe he's not a friend of Trump for sure, but he does want to see some of this implementation because he's a Republican. But he feels that Trump is making a difficult for that to be the case.

TIMPF: Right, absolutely. The original issue was the idea of Trump and Russia and collusion, and that's what people were looking into at first. And now it's Trump obstruction. There would be no Trump obstruction if it weren't for Trump saying things. That's just the fact of the matter, Eric. I'm not saying it's fair or not fair.


BOLLING: Even James Comey said there's no Trump obstruction.

TIMPF: Excuse me, Eric, I completely agree with you. I completely agree with you on that. I know there's no evidence of obstruction. The only reason we're asking that question it's because the way that Trump has acted.

BOLLING: But the one guy who people are saying has proof of any potential obstruction has said on the stand, under oath, no, I don't have any evidence of that.

TIMPF: I don't think there is. And it's also something that's very hard to prove.

BOLLING: So why are we talking about it?

BEARMAN: I actually completely disagree. James Comey said I don't make that judgment call. We have Preet Bhara, who's to be here in southern district of New York, saying exactly we have the evidence to start an obstruction case. Furthermore, any lawyer will tell you.

BOLLING: Under what grounds?

BEARMAN: Under what grounds?

BOLLING: What did he obstruct?

BEARMAN: He obstructed -- he attempted to obstruct the investigation.


BEARMAN: . brought the FBI director in the oval office and asked everybody else to leave. It's a little like, I don't know, a mob boss, and do me this little bit of a favor.

BOLLING: No, he never asked for that. He never asked for a thing. He said I hope you -- Yeah, I hope you find it.


BOLLING: That is not obstruction.

BEARMAN: Absolutely.

BOLLING: Let's ask the counselor.


BOLLING: Are these obstructions?

HEBBON: I have to say that there's no clear-cut evidence of obstruction of justice, but it does smell of a fishy situation. Why would a president meet along with the head of the FBI and say I hope you can let this go, or we can drop this? It doesn't.

WILLIAMS: The counterargument though would say, well, he wanted privacy, he wanted to be able to develop a relationship with his sitting -- you know, the point that we're demonstrating, all of us here in this panel, especially Kisha on this moment, you can argue it either way. That's the point. The point is.

BOLLING: But the obstruction is not arguable either way, it's either is or it isn't, and there has to be evidence of it. So far, we have no evidence.

HEBBON: That's why we have the trier effect who will determine if there's credibility or there's sufficient evidence to find obstruction of justice charge.

WILLIAMS: So ultimately, Robert Mueller will hopefully give us some facts around this. But we also have Ivanka Trump, president's daughter and special assistant, sitting down exclusively with "Fox & Friends" today, delivering a very matter of fact analysis of what she called relentless criticism directed at her father administration.


IVANKA TRUMP, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's a level of viciousness that I was not expecting. I was not expecting the intensity of this experience. But this isn't supposed to be easy. My father and this administration intend to be transformative. So I didn't expect it to be easy. I think some of these distractions and some of the ferocity was -- I was a little blindsided by it on a personal level.


WILLIAMS: Eric, you know the family well. Obviously, running for the White House is no easy feat, especially with the type of contention that was in this election right here. What about it do you think was particularly surprising for them?

BOLLING: Well, I think, as she points out, Ivanka Trump points out, the veracity of the left, and the claims and, you know, we have liberal media holding up a bloody head of her father -- I mean, it just.

WILLIAMS: You don't think they saw that coming?

BOLLING: I don't think so. And I don't think anyone saw the Trump derangement syndrome the level it is. I will tell you watching that interview with Ivanka, rare interview with Ivanka, she's someone to keep your on because I think that if Donald Trump for some reason decides not to run in 2020, I think he will, but if doesn't, keep your eye on Ivanka Trump. I think she's one who could be a major political player going forward.

WILLIAMS: I think her likability is significantly higher than her father's. That's why I ask that point, not to be sarcastic, on favorability and un-likability of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were at a world-class low, the reason I'm seeing in this country, so that's why I'm a little surprised at her being surprised by this treatment.

BEARMAN: Yeah. We have three administrations in a row of a derangement syndrome that's been going on, Bush, Obama, and now Trump. I believe that politics has moved beyond being just a blood sport. This is a full on roman colosseum is what's happening here. We're wanting heads and everything else, as horribly evidenced by Kathy Griffin. But let's be honest about this, you have to know what you're getting into at this point because we are seeing these things going on. And I hope we can find our way forward out of this and be a better country where we're not just viciously attacking over every little thing. I think Ivanka's got more than her fair share of getting attacked for what her father has done. She's not her father.

TIMPF: I mean, look at what happened when Mitt Romney made the binders full of women comments. Remember that when it was like the peak outrage, horribly sexist thing to say, people went nuts over that. So then when you have Trump who's been caught saying things that are unquestionably, objectively, very offensive, you can't be surprised that you're going to have this kind of backlash. I don't know why in the world you'll be surprise.

BOLLING: On the family, they're literally attacking Barron Trump at one point, an 11-year-old.

TIMPF: Yeah, agree.

BOLLING: Unfair, uncalled for. I don't see it getting any better, though. What's going to make it better?

BEARMAN: Well, I think we start having some positive conversations. If all we do is endlessly attack the other side instead of finding some areas of compromise where we could say, hey, you know what, these are real issues.

BOLLING: Now you have a Republican president. I'm waiting for the left to find that positive conversation, to spark up that positive conversation about Donald Trump. You can't even find it on some shows where purportedly Republicans are around.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. That's true. For the record, I think that the Bush daughters, I think that the Obama daughters, and Barron Trump should all be off-limits.

TIMPF: I agree.

WILLIAMS: Yes, mother of the year, we're in agreement. OK. We've got to run, but a quick programming note. Be sure to catch the Fox special coverage of the Jeff Sessions' hearing tomorrow, beginning at 2:00 PM eastern, right here on Fox News Channel. And when we come back, it is time to wake up, America. A Trump-inspired production of Julius Caesar sparked an uproar after depicting the assassination of our president, and it got Eric Bolling all fired up. Stay tuned.


BOLLING: Welcome back. It's time now for wake up, America. Just when you thought it was impossible, liberal left wing nut jobs in Hollywood and Broadway have reached a new low. Lower even than the low that was reached last week when Kathy Griffin simulated the beheading of President Trump with a bloody head dangling over her non-talented hands in an obvious -- to ISIS terrorists. Now a production of a Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar, went lower with a horrifying and tasteless scene. In the Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar is assassinated. In the Shakespeare in the park adaptation, President Trump is assassinated. The Trump character stabbed repeatedly over and over, hundreds of times, blood flying everywhere. Cast members trying to rip the president apart. Multiple assassins take turns stabbing a dying president.

Now we highlighted this disgusting scene, and the sponsors reacted swiftly. Delta Air Lines is Julius Caesar largest sponsor, they pulled out of funding for the production. Bank of America followed as well. Because this isn't art, this is just disgusting. Now that's my opinion, but apparently not the opinion of the New York Times who vowed to remain its sponsors of the play, as well as Time Warner will also remain as sponsors. Unbelievably, CNN host Fareed Zakaria just called the Trump assassination play a, quote, masterpiece. No, New York Times, Time Warner, or CNN, it's not art, it's not free speech, and certainly not a masterpiece, it's just plain hate.

But I do remember something far-less hate filled happening in 2013, there's a rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask in the ring. He tried to have fun at the then president expense, but the left-wing media hypocrites went apoplectic. That rodeo clown was fired over your outrage at such a display of disrespect for a seated president. Well, lefties, apply that same outrage to the folks at Julius Caesar. I dare you. You'd be demanding that play be shut down. Or more predictably, you'll defend the play as artistic expression and expose the ominous undercarriage of the liberal media which is loaded with hypocrisy and devoid of American values. All right. Now, I'm going to give my free-speech advocate on my left, screen right, a shot at this. Am I too harsh on the liberal media for not speaking up about this play?

TIMPF: I think that they lost two sponsors, and I think that's not hard to see why when you're talking about what's going to be socially acceptable when you start to involve something where there's this depiction of the assassination of a president. A lot of time that's going to be unpopular and you will face consequences. The consequences have to come from outside of the law. In a free society, this is free-speech. In order for not to be free speech it had to be a direct threat. It's obviously a fictional play. It's obviously not a direct threat. Hate speech is free-speech.

BOLLING: Absolutely. I like to point out that I'm not against free speech, hate speech. I'm against boycotts. But in this case, this whole monologue was about the hypocrisy coming from the left. That rodeo clown who put an Obama mask on got fired, and he was told he's never allowed at the rodeo circuit again.

WILLIAMS: Eric, I think you're a little hard because I think that both sides are starting to get called out, maybe slower that you would like, but it's starting to happen. There's the CNN host referred to the president as a piece of feces, out quick, also a CNN host. So as Kat said, this particular play losing both Delta and I believe Bank of America as sponsors. So I do think people are starting to see -- free-speech, absolutely, we all agree with that. But free-speech isn't necessarily free. There's a consequence that comes along with voicing your opinion when certain people take issue with it.

BOLLING: And Kisha, the word fire is not necessarily -- it's free-speech, you can yell fire whenever you want, unless you're going to put people in danger.

HEBBON: Right.

BOLLING: Some people are acting on these impulses of depiction of a president being assassinated or beheaded.

HEBBON: Well, I personally think that people need to lighten up a bit, and I understand people would perceive that as disrespectful, but it's a play. Isn't that what acting is all about? I don't feel that this should be taken to the extent of, you know, they still have tons of other sponsors.

BOLLING: The difference is this play has been going on, Kisha, for a long time, Shakespeare in the park. President Obama, actually -- Julius Caesar at one point -- the killing of President Obama's Julius Caesar wasn't anything like this. It wasn't a mauling. It wasn't repeated stabbing, pulling at him, blood flying everywhere, this is a completely different depiction.

HEBBON: I think that the production feels that this is more of an artistic expression.

BOLLING: Of what though? What are they expressing? This disdain and hate for President Trump.

HEBBON: Well, we had it on with President Obama. Like you said, the thing with the clown. Our politics is at such an all-time low and just disrespectful all around, but I think in these situations, we can't necessarily say that it's just outright trying to make a threat to the president.

BOLLING: OK. Let me ask you this, Ethan, is it -- my calling out of the left, I'm pointing out that they were apoplectic about that rodeo clown, and all he did was wear an Obama mask in a rodeo ring. He wasn't killed. Nothing bad happened to him. He just wore the mask. Meanwhile, President Trump here in this depiction is destroyed, is mauled, is pulled apart.

BEARMAN: Yeah. I'm also not pleased with that adaptation. I mean, art is in the eye of the beholder. So they have the artistic free right to do that. The advertisers, the sponsors, have a right to pull out as well. I am not a fan of boycotts of anyway, shape, or form, of anybody who is expressing their free speech. I am a fan of the individual to use their wallet as the number one way to vote in this country beyond the voting booth. It's even more powerful. I want the violence. I want that stuff to end and dial it back. This is back to what we were talking a little bit ago. We need to start finding where we have all these commonalities as Americans, and working together, and being friends with one another, and talking to each other, not just attacking the other side, and I think we can do that.

TIMPF: The idea of the tolerant left is certainly a myth. I don't think there's tolerance anywhere on any side. Everything is so politicized, us versus them. But you've got to say free-speech. You said it didn't fall under free-speech.


BOLLING: They're being tolerant to this, but when it President Obama, that was the subject, they weren't so tolerant.

WILLIAMS: But, you know what also, Eric, I didn't hear any outrage from the right, though, Eric, when President Obama was repeatedly depicted in a noose hanging, as if this was the Jim Crow south. So, again, I think consistency on the issue becomes very important.

BOLLING: That's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for -- both are wrong and we would call that out.


HEBBON: I agree with Eboni, when President Obama was in office, he was disrespected on so many levels. And even he stood there and took it. What did he had to do, all he had to do is do his job. But, I think that now we're in such an adversarial climate.


BOLLING: In five months of a presidency, we've already had his head being severed by Kathy Griffin, we have Madonna calling out and saying we need to blow up the White House. We have Snoop Dogg pointing a gun at the president's head. And now we have this mauling of a president in Shakespeare in the park. In eight years of President Obama's term, I just don't recall that.

WILLIAMS: I think that's personal, Eric, because I know I recall. I remember seeing dummies of him on fire, literally.

BOLLING: Bush had that too, though.

WILLIAMS: No, not.


BOLLING: I remember House of Thrones, I believe it was, had Bush's head on the stake in one of the episodes. No, Game of Thrones.

WILLIAMS: OK. Again, though, that's different from the racial reference with Obama as a lynch person in Jim Crow south.

BOLLING: Fair enough. We'll leave it right there. Coming up, a top Democrat calling for an investigation into former attorney general, Loretta Lynch, and her alleged meddling into the Hillary Clinton email probe, that's next. And later, you've got to see this folks, a Fox News Specialists took Yankee Stadium by storm for Fox fan weekend. Don't go away. You want to see all those pictures.


TIMPF: New aftershocks from James Comey's bombshell claim last week that last year, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a "matter" instead of an investigation. Comey said the request led him -- excuse me, left him feeling queasy.

The revelation is so stunning that now one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress is demanding answers.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you. I think we need to know more about that. And there's only one way to know about it, and that's to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.


TIMPF: Yes, I completely agree. It should make everybody feel queasy. If this is true, this amounts to her trying to use her place as an intelligence [SIC] official to influence the outcome of an election.

BOLLING: I think you just defined obstruction of justice.

WILLIAMS: That's true. That is true.

HEBBON: Well, I say Comey said, "I got fired. I'm bringing everyone down." Because look at all the things that are coming out from his testimony. You have the president being accused of obstruction of justice. Then you have Loretta Lynch and...

WILLIAMS: Jeff Sessions.

HEBBON: ... Sessions. It's crazy.

WILLIAMS: There's plenty of Comey ammunition to go around.

And look, I have to say, Eric, I've pretty much been supportive of Loretta Lynch, but you know, I have a real problem with this, because as A.G., you can't be taking your talking points from a presidential campaign. And that's essentially what this amounts to. That "matter" language comes straight from the Clinton playbook.

BOLLING: And let's ask Ethan. Now would this rise to the level of obstruction, if Donald Trump saying, "I hope, you know, the Flynn thing goes away," if that rises to your level, wouldn't this, as well?

BEARMAN: Absolutely. I fully support an investigation into A.G. Lynch. I thought that her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac was severely problematic. I think that this needs to be fully investigated.

I don't care the political party of somebody who is not looking out for the best interests of the country as a whole, putting party or individual before the country and the the rule of law should be fully investigated and held to account.

TIMPF: Absolutely.

HEBBON: You know what? One of the problems I see with almost everything in this whole -- recent events with Comey is that it's "he say, she say." How do you prove? And even with Loretta Lynch...

WILLIAMS: That's what the memos are for, Kisha.

HEBBON: But with Loretta Lynch, she can say, "No, I didn't." Where's the proof? Was it recorded? How are we going to know? It's going to boil down to credibility.

BOLLING: And have we -- have you guys lost credibility [SIC] in James Comey, because I certainly have. Because remember, if this alleged obstruction of justice or this occurrence was happening over a period of time, and he testified in front of Congress with his hands up under oath and said, "No, I've never experienced anything like that." And then to leak a memo after saying that under oath, he's lost all credibility on my side, on the right. Has he also lost it now on the left? People who are defending left?

HEBBON: Well, to play devil's advocate, I think that he may have leaked that memo or told it the way he did because he had no faith in the Justice Department. Maybe he felt that, if he went to whoever he was supposed to go to, nothing would have been done.

BOLLING: But Kisha, he testified under oath, he was asked: "Have you ever experienced obstruction of justice specifically by the Department of Justice?"

He took it one step further, said, "No, not only have I never experienced that at the DOJ, I've never experienced it, period. Because that would be wrong; that would be illegal." So he just -- he just -- just gave Donald Trump a wide, clear pass on that.

WILLIAMS: I'm going to disagree a little bit with my friend Kisha, because here's the thing, Eric. Everybody should be questioning Jim Comey's credibility. The left, the right, everybody in between. And you know why I think many people on -- the Democrats and things like this, are now kind of supporting Comey? Because he's positioned himself as a direct adversary for Donald Trump. That's what's happening.

BOLLING: Let me ask you this.

TIMPF: Everyone makes decisions based on political convenience, and they'll change their mind again, if it's something that they don't like. There's no loyalty to him at all.

BOLLING: If you give any credence to this Comey memo, because he said he took it extemporaneously right after something happened, where's that memo after Loretta Lynch told him to call a matter -- to call an investigation a "matter"?

WILLIAMS: You're making a very important point, because that memo probably doesn't exist. And that's my point.

This is not about making James Comey a hero.

BOLLING: It's political.

WILLIAMS: Exactly. And just like the Dems were severely upset with Jim Comey and wanted his resignation the minute he reopened the Hillary investigation, this is what this is. He has now positioned himself as the anti-Trump. That's where he's getting support from.

BOLLING: Absolutely.

TIMPF: All political convenience. All right.

Well, the threat from ISIS and radical Islamic terror is spreading across the globe, so why are anti-Sharia Law protests becoming the target of the left's scorn? We'll be right back.


BOLLING: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Ethan Bearman over there on screen right and Kisha Hebbon on screen left. So let's continue the conversation.

Anti-Sharia Law protests taking place across the country over this past weekend, focused on highlighting the threat of spreading radical Islam and terror. But the protesters were met with angry backlash from left-wing counter demonstrators. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Muslims are under attack. What do we do?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand up for them!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand up for them!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand up for them!



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let him go! Let him go!


BOLLING: So why is the left focusing this much rage at anti-Sharia protests, instead of an actual, true threat to American security, radical Islam?

By the way, worth noting: today is the one year since the most deadly terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. One year ago today, 49 men and women were murdered at The Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The perpetrator, an ISIS sympathizer. Some may want to call that a mass shooting. I prefer terror attack. One year ago.

Eboni, your thoughts on the protests and the anti-protests seem more violent than the protests.

WILLIAMS: So here's the issue, Eric. I don't think anyone is more underserved by that type of reaction than actual Muslims, moderate Muslims. Because the inability to make distinctions between law-abiding moderate, faithful Muslims and radical Islamic terror is a part of the problem. And people -- I give people enough credit to know that they can understandably, reasonably articulate that distinction. And we're all safer when that happens.

BOLLING: So this afternoon, I'm preparing for this segment and I'm talking, I'm thinking about that: where are the moderate -- where is the moderate Muslim voice? CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, put out an email, a statement. Or their website, they put out this out today. And I'm thinking, "Well, you know what they're going to do? They're going to mark 49 people dead one year ago at the hand of a radical Islamic extremist."

But guess what happened? I went through this thing and I'm looking for one link to anything regarding Pulse nightclub in Orlando, nothing. They're talking about civil rights. They're talking about these anti-Sharia protests. And they're talking about everything donating. And there's one more thing I wanted to pull out here. Talking about everything except the terror attacks. And I find that very, very scary.

Your thoughts, Kat, on what went on this weekend.

TIMPF: All right. Well, again, Eboni, I completely agree with where you stand on this. It's important to be tolerant and open of moderate Muslims, of course.

But then when we start to talk about things like female genital utilization, which is still going on in the United States, and the risks of being exposed to it are getting higher; it's not getting better. Those are things that we need to look at. We can't be afraid to talk about those things for the sake of political correctness or not being sensitive, because that's a sick, evil thing that is happening in this country that we should be against. But again, the most important thing is making that distinction. It's a very clear distinction, and we need to make sure that we address that.

BOLLING: And one of the links on this, Ethan, is anti-Islam rallies nationwide intended to manufacture fear, fear of the Muslim community.

HEBBON: Well, I think that there is some truth in that statement. I'm not the biggest fan of CAIR, the point is very few people I've interacted with that say that they're anti-Sharia Law know the difference between Islam and what they're talking about with Sharia Law. They look to the Middle East, for example. They see some of the barbaric processes of female genital mutilation. That happens in Africa, as well. And they don't distinguish between, as Eboni absolutely correctly pointed out, moderate Muslims that want to live in our country and have a successful life without threat of those same Islamic terrorists.

ISIS wants to kill all of those Muslims...

TIMPF: Right.

BEARMAN: ... too that don't want to subjugate themselves to their twisted interpretation of Islam.

BOLLING: Speaking of twisted interpretation, these protests aren't anti- Muslim. They're anti-Sharia. So people want to make sure that Sharia Law doesn't creep its way into our society.

HEBBON: Right, and I get that, but I don't think it's possible, first of all. This is the United States. You can't impose a law on a whole country.

But I agree with what all of you are saying, that you can't categorize one religion into a group. The focus should be on every group that exercises these barbaric, torturous types of acts against people and humanity.

BOLLING: And Eboni and Kat, once a year or so, there's a protest that walks right up Sixth Avenue. It's a big protest. It's a pro-Muslim protest. And you know what? Everyone is very respectful. They watch. They actually block the road. People stand on the sideline. There wasn't any throwing things at the protestors at these anti-anti-Sharia Law protestors were perpetrating on -- this weekend.

WILLIAMS: That's ignorant, flat-out ignorant, Eric. And it goes back to Ethan's point. These are people that are refusing to make that distinction, and they're doing so at the expense of the very people they say they're trying to help and protect. That's very dangerous.

TIMPF: Absolutely, because if you get upset, if you're someone who gets upset at an anti-Sharia protest for the sake of Muslims, then you're the one who's looping in the Sharia with all Muslims. Which is not the case. Plenty of peaceful, moderate Muslims who don't believe in these sick, sick things. Female genital mutilation, honor killings. So if you -- if you can't make the distinction, then you're doing more harm than good, by far.

BOLLING: Ethan and Kisha, am I being overly optimistic to wish and hope that CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, would go so far as to denounce radical Islam?

BEARMAN: Well, I would love for them to do that. I would also love for them to separate themselves a little bit from Hamas and Hezbollah and some of those groups, as well. I'm not necessarily optimistic that that will happen in the next week.

But I think if we engage and have dialogue and continue to point out what has made this country great, with our freedoms, and also stopping people who want to commit terror from coming into this country at the same time, if we engage and communicate, that is how we can eventually get to that place where we need.

BOLLING: Final thought, Kisha.

HEBBON: I think you're optimistic, unfortunately. I feel like groups such as this, they have their loyalty to their, you know, religion. They -- you know, some of them hate Americans, no matter how much it makes sense to unite and do the right thing. So unfortunately, I don't have any faith in that.

BOLLING: All right. We're going to leave it there.

Up next, Democrats proving they'll go to any lengths to undermine President Trump. The attorneys general of Maryland and D.C. are now suing him over foreign payments to his businesses. Don't go away.


TIMPF: Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and D.C. are filing suit against President Trump today. They allege he has violated the Constitution over foreign payments to his businesses while he serves in office. But is this just a frantic legal shot from the left to try and undercut the administration?

Eboni, we haven't seen a situation like this with a president in office who has this kind of business empire, so this is kind of uncharted territory in a way. What do you think about it?

WILLIAMS: It 100 percent is, so here's where I want to go, and I want co- counsel here to help me out, Kisha.

OK. So they're really talking about the...

BOLLING: Emoluments Clause.

WILLIAMS: Yes, the Emoluments Clause. And you know, we know that's Article I of the Constitution: to prevent our government and leadership from being influenced by foreign governments.

But here's the issue, and I want to turn to Eric on this, as well. We don't want to penalize business people from going into political leadership. Because a lot of people in this country voted for exactly that. They are tired of, you know, status quo politicians. They want someone with business acumen in the White House.

So for me, this looks like a premature lawsuit, Kisha, because I'm not really sure exactly what they're alleging the pay-for-play was here. They say something about Trump Tower getting a bunch of money but, essentially, where is the bought and paid for influence?

HEBBON: Right. I think one of the biggest issues here and what differentiates President Trump from former presidents is that he didn't put it in a trust that's neutral. He's allowing his sons to control these businesses. So in essence, the public is going to feel he's still controlling it. He still has every say of what goes on with this business entity, and he can use his position as president to influence these foreign countries.

WILLIAMS: That's a lot of "coulds," right? But we don't know that that's happened. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

HEBBON: Right.

WILLIAMS: WE don't know that that's happened, so therefore, this suit, that's why I call it premature.

HEBBON: Right.

BOLLING: Can I weigh in on this?


BOLLING: If you work in the White House, if you work for the administration, you have to divest. Like Rex Tillerson did, like all the others did. Rex Tillerson had something like $400 million in Exxon stock. He had to divest it. He had to put it into a blind trust that he can't touch it.

The vice president and the president are excused from that ruling. The Emoluments Clause does not apply to those two. Now, would people like him, President Trump to say, "You know what? I'm going to put this into a blind trust and not touch it?" They would like it. Some would.

I personally don't have a problem with it, but here's the point. You make a very good point. The reason why they're excluded as president and vice president, because you want the best people to be your president. And if the best person happens to be a businessman who can't divest, then he should be. And therefore, they are exempt from the Emoluments Clause.

WILLIAMS: Yes, and that's what we have, Ethan, but I see you smirking over there.

BEARMAN: Yes, well, we haven't litigated this before.

BOLLING: Don't have to.


BOLLING: It's constitutional.

BEARMAN: We do not have this settled, my friend.

BOLLING: It's not even up for debate.

BEARMAN: The degree...

BOLLING: The president and vice president are excused, are -- they're not under the Emoluments Clause. They are not...

BEARMAN: This is the great thing about -- what I said the minute that President Trump was elected, on the election day, I said, "Well, great. We will finally get an answer to the question of what it means to have a business person become president." That's what he has done. He doesn't have a background in politics. He wasn't part of any of this stuff that was going on. He wasn't part of the party system, other than, you know, the contributions that happened. So money is involved. So now we will get absolute answers to these questions.

TIMPF: All right. Well, when we return, Eboni and I crashed the Fox Sports broadcast of a New York Yankees game this weekend.


WILLIAMS: This going to be is a big deal.

TIMPF: I've never been on anything sports. I'm a little new.

WILLIAMS: It's going to be fun. Welcome to the club. And we come bearing gifts.

TIMPF: Yes, we do.

WILLIAMS: We have stuff we can give them. That will be great.

TIMPF: Yes, having a shirt with my face on it is a new thing.


TIMPF: Yankee Stadium will never be the same. We'll show you next.


WILLIAMS: All right, time to "Circle Back," and we're starting with the great experience Kat and I had during the Fox Fan weekend at Yankee Stadium Saturday night. Fox Sports let us into their broadcasting booth. The Yankees matched up against the Baltimore Orioles.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell us about the show "The Specialists" on Fox News.

WILLIAMS: So it's great. So as you said, every day Monday through Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., and it's great. Cohosted by myself, Kat, and our co-host Eric Bolling. He's fantastic. Not here with us today. And then the really cool part, though, two news specialists each and every day. So 40 percent of the dialogue are brand-new voices for our viewers every single day.

TIMPF: Yes, so people get sick of hearing what we have to think, just us three and they already know. But they don't know what the other two are going to think, and they don't know how we're going to interact with them. So it's new, exciting, fresh every day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That idea could catch on, because when people get tired of what John and I have to say...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... they can add to our ranks. Turn the channel.

WILLIAMS: Bring us in.

TIMPF: Exactly. That's why we're here.


WILLIAMS: How fun was that? We had a blast meeting the numerous Fox fans that came out to the game. And everyone's spirits were helped by the Yankees absolutely crushing the Orioles on both Saturday and Sunday.

So a special thanks to all of you fans who showed up, especially those who had such nice things to say about our show. There was one big question, though, Eric Bolling, where were you?

BOLLING: First of all, I want to say you guys were amazing.

TIMPF: Thank you.

BOLLING: And if this "Specialists" thing doesn't work out, you guys are awesome fill-ins for Fox Sports.

WILLIAMS: Fox Sports, baby.

TIMPF: I'm a baseball expert.

BOLLING: Well, you don't have to, because you sounded like you knew what you were talking about.

WILLIAMS: Thank you. We're just going to move over to there.

BOLLING: I happened to be in a dentist's chair for most of Saturday.

WILLIAMS: You're the real baseball experts.

TIMPF: Exactly.

WILLIAMS: Come on. Like you weren't there.

So Kisha, you are self-proclaimed mother of the year. And I've seen you in action. You are a wonderful mother to little Kayla.

HEBBON: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: And I heard that she is graduating soon. Tell us about that.

HEBBON: Yes, she's going to high school in September. And she's a proud author of a book that's about to be published next month. It's called "Anything But Ordinary." So she's an amazing child.

WILLIAMS: She is anything but ordinary, you overachiever.

BOLLING: I want to ask this guy over here, how do you define yourself? What's your political leaning, bent? What are you? Are you a Libertarian? Are you a liberal? What is it?

BEARMAN: I call myself "no party preference," which is exactly what it is in California. I -- I look at the country as a whole. I look at the law. I try and look at each topic individually. So NPP for me.

BOLLING: Got you. Thank you, Ethan.

WILLIAMS: NPP, I like it. Is that different than OPP?

BEARMAN: A little bit, a little bit. You can sing it, you know, same thing.

WILLIAMS: I like it. All right.

Well, thank you to our "Fox News Specialists" today, Ethan Bearman and Ms. Kisha Hebbon.

And we thank you all for watching at home. Make sure you follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on both Twitter and Facebook. And remember, folks, 5 p.m. will never be the same.

Also, be sure to catch Fox's special coverage of the Jeff Sessions hearing tomorrow starting at 2 p.m. Eastern on Fox News Channel. "Special Report" is 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.