This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," August 7, 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 Kat Timpf and Lisa Boothe. This is "The Fox News Specialists."
Yesterday, the United States and Japan welcomed tougher sanctions on North Korea over its missile test, and said it was time to exert more effective pressure on Pyongyang rather than pursue dialogue. North Korea has threatened, quote, thousand fold revenge against the United States for banning exports worth $1 billion following its intercontinental ballistic launches. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is demanding justice over Donald Trump's attempts to isolate and stifle his country with bans on exporting coal, iron, lead and seafood. The question remains if these sanctions will have any effect on North Korea. Now, Kat, you know what I think about sanctions.
WILLIAMS: . and really what I think becomes really troubling ways to enforce them, so do you have any hope this is going to have impact on North Korea.
KATHERINE TIMPF, CO-HOST: Well, he doesn't care if his own people are starving to death, of course, sanctions have really limited power. And, of course, you're going to get this kind of response. You couldn't expect them to be just OK with it and not retaliate in this kind of way, making comments like that.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. Lisa, obviously, something is better than nothing in this scenario, but, I mean, really, what can we hope for around these sanctions?
LISA BOOTHE, CO-HOST: Look, President Trump said that is he going to put maximum pressure on North Korea, so I think that this is a step in that direction. I think it's also a sign that the international community is behind the United States in this effort, particularly, with Russia and China. China equates to about 90 percent of trade with North Korea, so that's obviously the key. I think there's also been a lot on congress about putting more economic sanctions on North Korea as well. I believe they're only about the fifth most sanctioned country, so I think there is a lot more.
BOOTHE: Yeah, took a different step in the right direction towards doing that.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Well, now we will meet today's specialist. He's a Fox News military analyst, has over 29 years of military experience in special operations, counter terrorism, and intelligence operation, and he's the author of the book, Without Mercy, and he specializes, of course, in war and terror, Colonel David Hunt is here. And she is the president of the People's House Project, a former congressional candidate, and the author of Reversing the Apocalypse, and her specialty is helping working class candidates win, Krystal Ball is here. Colonel, I'm going to, obviously, come to you on this. You know, I don't think that America has yet to figure out an effective way of course to deal with North Korea. What do these sanctions mean through your lens?
DAVID HUNT, FOX NEWS MILITARY ANALYST: Nothing. Won't work. Ain't going to happen. We've had s Democrats, Republicans, two term -- North Korea. North Korea is still pariah. This guy is wackier than the rest of them have been, very, very dangerous with intercontinental ballistic missiles. And they've blown up a nuke I think four times. The issue is not will there be sanctions, is that Seoul, Korea and Tokyo are held hostage by North Korean's aggression. And our military options, although we could win are very, very limited because of the millions of casualties that we have in a war with them.
WILLIAMS: Can I follow up, and I'll get to you in one second, Krystal, what do those military options look like from your point of view?
HUNT: Disaster. They -- 136-mile wide demilitarize zone, 155,000 pieces of artillery. Seoul is only 30 miles away. And if we do a fast strike, they still get 6 to 8 minutes warning, North Korea.
BOOTHE: Then what option does the United States have? Because if you're saying that sanctions don't work, so putting that economic pressure on North Korea doesn't work, and now you're saying that the military options which we all know are bad and there aren't a lot of good military options, what does that leave the United States then?
HUNT: There is only road in to North Korea, it's China. The good news is the new administration got the Chinese to actually say something aggressively about sanctions. That's the good news thing. But China is the only option. There is no -- I'm just saying too hot a road militarily. We could win it, but it would be millions of casualties, civilian casualties.
WILLIAMS: Krystal, speaking of China, many Americans have felt hopeful that that would be the primary way that we can win this, looks like impending violent war with North Korea. Do you think they're at all serious, because it looks like they hesitated and kind of played chicken on this issue thus with the U.S.?
KRYSTAL BALL, PEOPLE'S HOUSE PROJECT PRESIDENT: Yeah. Well, I don't know that I can get inside their minds, but I think this is a positive step forward this U.N. Security Council resolution. I think it does indicate that everybody is on the same page. I think we have to give U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley a lot of credit here. She is in a lot of ways been empowered to sort of walk a different line than what the administration has publicly said. I mean, the president came in with this very go it alone approach, and she's done a lot of work laying the groundwork there. And we see, even though, I'm -- like you all, I don't have a lot of hope that these sanctions are actually going to have any effect because this is a regime that has shown a willingness to let their people literally starve and die than chart a different course. But I do think that this is important first step to at least have everybody on the same page and maybe China steps up because that is the only path probably to avoiding some sort of disastrous military conflict.
WILLIAMS: Kat, let me ask you this, when we talk about a world coalition being required, all right, this is not something the U.S. can do alone, clearly, we're all getting a clear picture of that. The likelihood, you think, Ambassador Nikki Haley and her ability to get buy-in internationally around treating North Korea like the critical problem and imminent threat internationally that it is.
TIMPF: Well, it all comes down to when it becomes to be something in those country's own best interest. In terms of tension between the United States and North Korea, China loves that, they love to see us squirm, they love to see us having those issues, while they get to benefit economically, but they don't want war. That would be worse for them than it would be for us because of the refugee crisis and all sorts of other issues that would be created by having a power vacuum in North Korea. So, it's all about showing them how it's in their best interest to actually cooperate with this serious problem.
BOOTHE: Krystal, to you real quick, you said that President Trump has been trying to go it alone. We know for a long time and throughout the duration of this presidency so far, he has tried to work with China and trying to enlist China as a partner in interactions against North Korea and trying to get them to back off a little bit. So how can you say that he wants to go it alone when we actually have seen him put a lot of effort in building that relationship?
BALL: Sure. Well, it's a little ironic to see him touting progress made at the United Nations.
BOOTHE: You just said progress was made.
BALL: But I don't think that the United Nations is an institution that the -- Bannon wing of the party, particularly, tends to celebrate.
WILLIAMS: Pointing out how Nikki Haley kind of able to make a distinction.
BALL: Absolutely. So this is the ultimate, sort of, globalist, internationalist organization, right? The U.N. is what people, again, in the Bannon wing always sort of rail against and want us out of the U.N. This really underscores how it is important when you are facing a global crisis, which is what this is with North Korea that we do have our friends and allies at the table. So, again, I give him credit for that. I give Nikki Haley credit for really working on that ground. But I think this underscores we are not able to go it alone in the world. We need our friends and our allies. Those relationships are important. And they can't just be bilateral relationships. We need that global view.
WILLIAMS: And earlier today, secretary of state Rex Tillerson told reporters in Manila that if North Korea wants to engage in talks with the U.S. it must first stop launching missiles. And just a short time ago, U.S. officials told Fox News that American spy satellites detected North Korea moving anti-ship cruise missiles to a patrol boat off the country's east coast. As for how long a military moratorium would have to last to be taken as a signal, Tillerson said we'll know it when we see it. To this colonel, obviously, that's a good start, right, stopping the consistent and almost revved up launching of missiles to show, I don't know, good faith on their part?
HUNT: I'm just troubled by the leaks. Look, we just told the North Koreans what time a satellite goes over and what size boat it can look at. Tillerson is a good guy, a lot of people that work for him. The issue is North Korea is almost an impossible nut to crack because they know what I just said and, yes, there seems to be a united front, United Nations. But there is -- there're very, very limited options that the world can put more on to them, and everyone jumps to the military option. And that secretary of state just took all the negotiations off the table.
WILLIAMS: By revealing his hand.
HUNT: You have to stop doing this or we'll do that. And nobody expects, and I'm clearly not a politician, but nobody expects North Korea to go, oh, well, the secretary of state says that, we're going to stop shooting missiles.
WILLIAMS: That's fair. That's fair, Kat, but, ultimately, can we even engage, you go to the table to negotiate with people that are actively still testing missiles that we now know can hit the United States of America.
TIMPF: Absolutely. But to your point, also, it's important to remember that in North Korea, although these people are being oppressed by this horrible dictator, that what they're seeing in the state controlled media is that we're the bad guys. That they need these missiles, that they need these nuclear weapons because we're going to go after North Korea and we're this big looming scary threat, so that's an important thing to remember. And it's also, you know, all of these threats coming out say we're going to get you, we could have expected this. As soon as we signed these sanctions we could have said, OK, they're going to come out and say we're going to kill a bunch of Americans. That's the expected. You can't expect them to say, oh, there're sanctions on us? OK, well, that's cool. Now we're scared and we're going to stop. So it's important to kind of remember that they're going to retaliate, that they're going to say these things, and that people in North Korea don't see things the way that is happening in reality because they're not allowed to.
WILLIAMS: Now, Krystal, they don't see it in North Korea, but, again, the global buy-in component do you think what Rex Tillerson is articulating here is important and powerful.
BALL: I am skeptical also, that any of this is going to have an impact. Now I think you have to do it, right? I think you have to take these steps. I think you have to try. But, is it ultimately going to be successful? No. I want to say I'm really glad that you're focusing this important first block of your show on this issue because this is an incredibly scary moment. We've had lots of sort of missile scares and tests with North Korea. I think it's easy to feel like, oh, this is just another thing. We've seen this in the past. Nothing has actually happened.
TIMPF: You mean the revenge itself, is that what you're talking about?
BALL: I mean, the missile tests and the question around what are we going to be doing about North Korea. This is an incredibly significant and frightening development. It is the first real crisis this this administration has faced.
HUNT: That's fair for six months, but the North Koreans blown up two nukes under Bush 43. That's clearly was a higher problem than the missiles. The missile issue, by the way, everyone keeps saying as soon as they punch a missile up it's going to hit New York City. That's just not true. That's an opinion within the intelligence community. It's dangerous. North Korea is dangerous. My only push back is when this country -- North Korea blew up nukes on the ground that was a lot more critical than what we're having right now.
BALL: Being able to reach the United States is a whole new level.
BOOTHE: I hope you're right.
(LAUGHTER) HUNT: All I'm just saying it's very convenient every time they punch one up they say, oh, it's going to reach us. It's going to reach New York. The danger is whether they can put a nuke on top of a missile, period, and still reach Seoul and Tokyo.
WILLIAMS: So are we seeing that this is just a rhetorical revving up of North Korea's abilities, colonel?
HUNT: No. They've got real capabilities.
WILLIAMS: OK, to be clear
HUNT: . no question. I'm not minimizing North Korea's capabilities.
HUNT: . it's the frustration with how you're going to get at it.
WILLIAMS: Fair enough. On Sunday, China called on North Korea to halt its missile and nuclear test. The support from China is a welcome boost since they're typically North Korea's economic lifeline. The Trump administration cautiously embraced China's apparent new found cooperation, while putting it on notice that the U.S. would be watching closely to ensure it didn't ease up on North Korea if and when the world's attention is diverted elsewhere. I think this is important, Lisa, because we remember the meeting between China's president and President Trump and everybody felt like optimistic something was going to come. It seemed like they disappeared on that one.
BOOTHE: And we saw a little bit of hope with the turning away of coal ships. China is the economic lifeline for North Korea, 90 percent of its trade has to do with China. So the question is how do we engage China. And the question for China is this in their interest? So y question for the colonel, do you think is it in China's interest to work with the United States in trying to deter North Korea?
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, yes. The answer is yes. It's called trillions of dollars. The trade issue between China and the U.S. is staggering. It's not just a one-way street. They need us and we've got serious economic -- on China, and this administration seems to understand that. And we do have the Chinese coming forward, which is a big step.
WILLIAMS: Let me ask you this, colonel, how far do you think President Trump and his administration will go around incentivizing economically China's cooperation because, from where I'm sitting, colonel, it doesn't seem like China is just going to decide it's in their best interest because we all feel like it is. It seems like it has to be clearly incentivized.
HUNT: I think it remains to be seen. Whether the businessman, now president, can execute that kind of negotiations, we don't know that yet.
BOOTHE: I think one thing that's important to point out, too -- I don't think anyone in the Trump administration is saying that this is the answer, that this U.N. resolution or even looking at sanctions is the answer against North Korea. I think what they're trying to do is exactly what President Trump said, maximum pressure. So what they're looking to do is to try to look at any avenue that we have to try to push and put pressure on North Korea. And this is certainly part of that.
WILLIAMS: Can I ask you this, Lisa. Do you think President Trump and his administration will be willing to threaten that trade, that all important economic trade that we do so much of with China to make that point? Is that included in how far he will go?
BOOTHE: I do. I absolutely do. I think President Trump has even said things along those lines in the past, so yes, absolutely.
WILLIAMS: We know he said it, Kat, but, again, sometimes that's different to what he actually does, right?
BOOTHE: That's not the way it works.
TIMPF: Well, this is obviously a good sign. And this is really the only way that we could get to this problem without killing millions of people. This is a very, very serious thing. And although you can get scared by some of the rhetoric coming out of North Korea and, of course their actual capabilities getting to be more and more and more capable, military option is also just not an option in my mind, because it results in millions upon millions of innocent people being dead.
WILLIAMS: It is technically an option, Krystal, although, nobody wants to see civilian dead.
BALL: It's a frightening option and, you know, if we continue down this path, I think, we'll be well headed there.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. I just think the time line, colonel, looks like it's narrowing in terms of what our options are.
HUNT: I don't think his military advisors like the secretary of state and the secretary of defense are going to allow that. That's my hope.
WILLIAMS: Hopefully it doesn't get there, absolutely.
HUNT: Guys have been to war. They don't want another one.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Next stop, a bombshell report released from the DOJ, 400 pages about the infamous private meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, this after Comey's FBI said no records existed.
TIMPF: The Department of Justice releasing more than 400 pages of emails relating to that suspicious meeting between then A.G. Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton. The meeting took place right around the time the DOJ was investigating then candidate Hillary Clinton's email scandal raising serious concerns about the department's impartiality into the investigation. No charges were filed against Clinton. The email release resulting from a suit filed by the American council for law and justice, making matters worse, the ACLJ claims that the FBI under then director, James Comey, originally denied the existence of those same emails. Lisa, does that seem suspicious to you at all?
BOOTHE: The saga never ends. It does certainly seem suspicious, especially just with all of Comey's actions, right? I mean, this is a guy who says he essentially released information to force the special counsel investigation. This is a guy who seemed to have no problem at the time with Loretta Lynch, instructing him to use --you know, certain wordings to basically down play the investigation. This is a guy.
WILLIAMS: To be fair, Lisa, he did say it made him a bit queasy.
TIMPF: He was having a lot of stomach issues during that time.
BOOTHE: He was going through some sort of stomach flu at the time. So, this is a guy who The Hill reported that some of that information and the notes that he took contained classified information. So he essentially did the same thing that he criticized Hillary Clinton over doing. But I also think if you look at these emails one thing that's interesting, if you look at reporter inquiries from both the Washington Post and New York Times as well, on both reporters basically emailed the DOJ saying that I'm essentially being forced to cover this because my editors are asking me to. And so, you look at that and compare the way that the Trump administration is being covered, and there is just a lot of hypocrisy there.
TIMPF: Like you were saying, Krystal, this doesn't seem to be going away. Do you see it ever going away.
WILLIAMS: Krystal, your face is like worth a million dollars right now.
TIMPF: . I don't think that it should. Regardless of what party, I think we should be concerned about keeping government officials accountable.
BALL: I think that no one should be more angry with Bill Clinton about going over and having his little head on head with Loretta Lynch than his wife, because.
TIMPF: She should be angry at him for many reasons.
BALL: For many reasons. This is one of them, because, ultimately, his actions are what led to Loretta Lynch deferring to Jim Comey, which lead to Jim Comey doing his weird announcement thing, and then coming back out when they found more emails, and then coming back out and saying those emails were actually duplicated emails. And look, I'm the first to say there are a million other reasons that Hillary Clinton lost, including her being a poor candidate.
BOOTHE: Like not going to Wisconsin.
BALL: Not going to Wisconsin, the Democratic Party failing to address economic issues. That is all true, but it's also true that James Comey is part of that story. So no one should be angrier about the way this all unfolded than Hillary Clinton herself and other democrats. Jim Comey has given everybody something to love and something to hate.
TIMPF: Eboni, it's not just about that meeting, right? Remember James Comey, as you brought up, Lisa, was saying, you know, call it a matter not an investigation. So if he's telling the truth, we already know that she had no problem using her position to influence a campaign.
WILLIAMS: Talking about Loretta Lynch, yeah, I was going to say, I mean, as messed up as Bill Clinton was for going and approaching the sitting attorney general while you know your wife is under a current investigation.
BOOTHE: Why, why?
WILLIAMS: But you know what, I call Loretta Lynch even more.
(CROSSTALK) HUNT: Were you surprised that Bill Clinton approached women inappropriately?
WILLIAMS: No, no, colonel.
WILLIAMS: I will say this, I'm holding Loretta Lynch more accountable though, because here's the thing, Bill Clinton -- he's going to do what Bill Clinton wants to do and what he thinks in his interests.
BOOTHE: Is this a boys will be boys kind of argument?
WILLIAMS: No, no, no. I'm saying he felt that that was OK. If I'm Loretta Lynch though, Krystal, I'm going to say, you know what, even though you're the former U.S. president, I have my own credibility on the line, in jeopardy, at stake, so respectfully, Mr. President, I'm going to have to see you in another time and another setting.
HUNT: The bureau thinks pretty highly with Comey. Here's my problem what the former director did. The same time he's giving five separate briefings about Clinton which he shouldn't have given one. The last one was obviously the worst. He was also actively investigating Trump and Russia at the same time and didn't say -- by the way, neither one should have been public at all. FBI agent did what he did, fired, or moved to Alaska, or worse. So, it was not -- it was -- he pick and choose when to do it, and he gave five separate ones and the Clinton one -- unanimously said, by the way, there was nothing in the emails, unanimous.
BOOTHE: And not even that, we also had the former FBI director who announced in front of congress that the Trump administration was -- or they were looking at Trump in connection to Russia. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, telling the president directly that he himself was not under investigation. So, I think we saw a lot of that from FBI Director Comey where he said one thing in public and another thing behind the scenes.
WILLIAMS: Which is why, Lisa Boothe, you can never take these guys at their word. Seriously, I always tell people, just because you're told one thing, even if you're the sitting United States president, it really doesn't mean anything, because, certainly, a lot of times they like to sneak attack. They like that element of surprise. They will never tell you anything. You won't know a grand jury has convened, but for the leaks. Most of what we know, we have to remember, is literally because of leaks.
BALL: Well, he wanted to keep his job, Jim Comey, at the time, and didn't work out so well for him.
TIMPF: No, really, really, did not. And we never should trust anybody.
BALL: All parties can agree on, don't trust anyone.
WILLIAMS: Maybe that $2 million book deal will drive his peers.
TIMPF: Yeah. I think his life is going to be really tough. President Trump is announcing plans to cut legal immigration in half, while Los Angeles has made $1.3 billion in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just two years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE HILTON, HOST, "THE NEXT REVOLUTION": Something truly weird has happened on the left. They now say, literally, anything accept open borders is racist and unacceptable. I say bring back the reasonable Democrats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOOTHE: President Trump embraced a proposal to slash legal immigration to the United States. More than 1 million people are granted legal residency each year, and the proposal would reduce that by 41 percent in its first year, and 50 percent by its tenth year. President Trump said this legislation demonstrates or compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first. Fox News host Steve Hilton had this to say about illegal immigration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILTON: I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue for no illegal immigration at all. Everyone who comes here should do so according to the law. And it's reasonable to welcome immigrants who can make a contribution to our economy and our society. That's why a merit and skills based system like the one proposed this week makes sense, and is not racist but reasonable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOOTHE: So, Krystal, I want to start with you. So there's been a lot of charges lobbed against this president regarding his immigration policies, that he's racist; he's anti-immigrant. But if you go back history and you look at some of the proposals that the Democratic Party supported, for instance, the Secure Fence Act, people like Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein -- and that's actually the legislation that President Trump would use to build the wall -- Democrats in the past have supported policies that are merit-based in regard to immigration.
And you look at President Obama, he deported more illegal immigrants than any president in the past.
So this -- is this -- are those accusations only when it's a Republican president and when it's President Trump?
BALL: No, absolutely, the president -- President Obama earned his moniker "deporter in chief." Those were not stats that I heard a lot in conservative circles at the time, where it was about how easy he was being and how he was letting criminal illegal immigrants run wild, but that is the fact.
No, I think that there is a very important debate going on here about the future of economics and building an economic system that works for average people.
President Trump's theory of the case is that if we close the borders, if we don't let as many people in from other places, if we get rid of the people who are here from other places, that that's going to create more opportunity for people in this country. That is not backed up by the research. The research says that immigration has been a benefit to the country. The research says that it is not reducing wages, that that is not the problem.
But we are going through a massive economic transformation where we already have most of the jobs created in the country are low-wage jobs, and many of those are in danger of being automated out of existence. And the Democratic Party hasn't spoken; they haven't given an answer. So in the absence of an answer from the left that's compelling, the "it's the fault of immigrants" argument has won the day.
BOOTHE: You know, Eboni, you look at places like Australia and Canada that have put a preference on skills in regard to legal immigration. What are your thoughts on the president taking these steps to do a more merit-based system?
WILLIAMS: I have no problem with the more merit-based system at all, Lisa. And like you said, that has kind of had bipartisan support at one point or time.
My issue right now in the way we're talking about and really the administration is talking about immigration, it seems that we're conflating legal immigration and illegal immigration; and they're two very, very different things, as we all know.
So when I see legal immigration being cut in half, I get concerned. Because as someone who is against sanctuary cities and someone who doesn't believe that two wrongs make a right -- and I'll get to that in a minute in my "Docket" -- we also need to fix legal immigration, right, so that people are not doing things out of just a defiance of law or pure desperation.
TIMPF: Yes, well, Lisa, you also brought up Canada and Australia. And the merits-based system isn't really what I have an issue with. They do have a merits-based system in those countries. But they also accept double the amount of immigrants per capita than we do.
I have a huge issue with cutting the amount of legal immigrants in half for economic reasons. There are 5.7 million job openings in this country. Unemployment is very, very low. It's that we need people. We need workers. And we should absolutely not be stopping people from coming here legally to work and contribute to society.
BOOTHE: My understand, I don't think this -- this doesn't put a cap on how many legal immigrants that we accept into the country. There's no arbitrary number. I think the idea of that, with focusing more on the nuclear family, as opposed to the extended family, would reduce that number. But there's no arbitrary number that said...
TIMPF: They've been very open about wanting to cut legal immigrants.
BOOTHE: I think that's as a result of the legislation, not a specific number.
Colonel, I want to get new here, because I've seen your face. You're wanting to jump in.
TIMPF: Said that that was the goal. Jeff Sessions has said openly in the past that he wants to cut legal immigrants.
BALL: He didn't introduce this legislation, though.
TIMPF: He has said that. It's on the record. Anyone can feel free to Google it.
HUNT: But you've got a side show going on. OK. The president got elected on an issue of stopping illegal immigration and getting everybody out. He's finding out it isn't. This country was made great because of immigrants.
This issue that I'm hearing right now is straight up a political diversion issue. We've got a legal and security issue which we could get a handle on New York City; Portland, Maine; or Miami. It is not hard to do. We're just refusing to do it.
This is the wrong angle, in my opinion, to go after. You're going at the right side of immigration. The bad part is the 20 million that we don't have an idea where they are.
BALL: I also think the merit-based. I do have a problem with the merit- based piece here. Because there is a very classist assumption that the people who have already succeeded are going to be the people that can succeed in the future. And it ignores the fact that we have this belief in the American dream that anyone can come and make it and work hard, that it's not confined to wealthy elite few. So from that perspective, I think it's very contrary to the merit-based notion.
TIMPF: And I would agree with that. I would just say that I think it's disingenuous to conflate this policy with Canada and Australia, when they're accepting so many more immigrants overall.
BALL: Way more immigrants.
TIMPF: It's not the same.
BOOTHE: All right. Well, get this. Chicago is on pace for a record number of shootings this year. Yet, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is actually suing the DOJ over sanctuary city policies that are designed to punish these hardened criminals. Eboni's "Docket" is next You're not going to want to miss it.
WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists today are Colonel David Hunt and Krystal Ball. Let's continue the conversation. This is "The Docket."
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel leads a story that is on track to once again have more murders than New York City and Los Angeles combined. Yes, Chicago is beating its own record from last year as the deadliest city in the U.S., with over 409 killings so far for 2017.
Emanuel epitomized the political double talk, corruption and failed leadership that led many in our country for the first time ever to elect a nonpolitician or military person to the White House. Yes, Trump is largely our president because of political scum just like Rahm Emanuel. And I can't stand that Emanuel's failed leadership is contributing to the destruction of families and communities throughout the city of Chicago.
Now, instead of providing solutions for his hurting constituents, Emanuel, instead, takes this moment to announce that his plan is to sue the Trump administration for threatening to withhold grant funds from his city because of his refusal to cooperate with President Trump's crackdown on immigration.
Now, as much as I despise the politics that Rahm Emanuel is clearly playing in this critical moment, legally speaking, he does have a leg to stand on. Here's why.
See, the problem with conditioning federal grants to sanctuary cities is that it stands counter to long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to localities unless the conditions are so unambiguous so that the states can decide whether or not to accept those funds. Also, any such condition must be passed by Congress.
So, listen, there is a lot more on this legal showdown for both sides. Clearly, we're gearing up for a major battle.
Now, Colonel, that is my take on it. Obviously, I expect at some point the U.S. Supreme Court to have to weigh in here, because so far we don't have a clear-cut answer. Clearly, we see concerns and questions around federalism. But also, the executive branch's clear mandate around illegal immigration.
HUNT: Yes, my concern is I didn't -- I don't know how you feel about this. It was very low-key. I didn't know.
WILLIAMS: I know. I'm on the fence about it.
HUNT: Not a lot of emotion involved.
BOOTHE: Didn't really have a strong opinion.
WILLIAMS: Quite shy. Quite shy.
BOOTHE: Like a wall flower.
HUNT: Besides the four women here. This place is full of more pheromones than I've been around in a long time.
The smart one, smart guy, person I know around here ISIS Andrew Napolitano. He said -- I heard him on FOX, this is a nonissue. It doesn't make -- it doesn't get past the Supreme Court from what you just said.
I think the problem is you have failed leadership in Chicago. I think it's a political issue because of a brand-new president. Wouldn't matter if it was Republican or Democrat. It happens to be a polarizing figure like Trump and a polarizing figure like Rahm Emanuel.
The problem is citizens are being killed by the dozens every day in the middle of America, and we're not stopping it. And it is stoppable. It was stopped in New York City. It was stopped in Boston. It was stopped in Miami. It was recently stopped in Houston. It's inexcusable that it's occurring. And my concern is the politics around this are causing us again, another side show for what is real tragedy.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Krystal, obviously, what's going on in Chicago is beyond a tragedy; it's horrendous and unacceptable.
WILLIAMS: That said, that's separate, though. When we talk about this issue of illegal immigration and this lawsuit that Rahm Emanuel is the first one that we know of. But we know they're going to come from California and other jurisdictions. What do you anticipate, ultimately, being the determination around this federalism-states' rights concerns, versus President Trump's mandate around this issue?
BALL: Well, I think that local jurisdictions should have a lot of leeway in keeping their citizens safe. And I think that conservatives have historically been very concerned about a bullying federal government, pushing them to do things that they don't want to do and that they don't see as in their citizens' best interests.
So I take a counter-perspective to what you laid out, though, in the fact that I think Mayor Emanuel here is really working to protect his citizens. If you ask law enforcement agents and police chiefs across the country, they will tell you they need to collaborate with immigrant communities. And so if they become an arm of ICE, then that erodes that trust and cooperation, which really undermines community policing.
HUNT: You're way too smart for this. It's a -- the numbers alone make him a failure. How did you just say what you said?
BALL: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not defending -- no, I'm not defending the record in the city. But I'm saying that, on the sanctuary city policy, local law enforcement says this is part of helping keep citizens safe.
HUNT: Fair enough. Good qualifier.
BOOTHE: Oh, please. This is political grandstanding from Rahm Emanuel. We're going to see this across the country.
BALL: No, it's not.
BOOTHE: Yes, it is. Liberal mayor...
TIMPF: ... issue.
BOOTHE: We're going to see lawsuit after lawsuit. Similar to what Republicans did to President Obama on a variety of issues. Particularly in regard to immigration. I think this is political grandstanding by Rahm Emanuel. And he should be focusing on...
WILLIAMS: You don't think he has a constitutional point, though?
BOOTHE: I think he should be focusing on...
TIMPF: Would you think the same thing if it was the president -- would you think the same thing if it was the president trying to go after gun control? The gun control issue?
BOOTHE: Hold on. I think he should be focusing on the illegality in his own city, with the mass amount of murders you see instead of promoting additional lawlessness.
WILLIAMS: OK, that's fine enough for you to think that, though, Lisa, but when you...
BOOTHE: You don't think he should be focused more on...
WILLIAMS: No, that's fine. Kat -- I mean, not Kat, sorry, Lisa. If you listened to "The Docket"...
TIMPF: ... the lawlessness in his own city?
WILLIAMS: ... I started with that, right? But that doesn't take away a strong constitutional argument that is the basis for his suit.
BOOTHE: But we're also talking about grant money, and the federal government has a right to decide how they divvy up grant money.
TIMPF: Congress does. That's how traditionally Congress is supposed to be -- if there's going to be conditions placed on grant money, Congress does that. Not the executive branch.
So if we have a precedent set where the executive branch has the power to do this, conservatives might might not like it so much if there is a Democrat in Congress [SIC] that tries to put, oh -- excuse me, to put conditions on, oh, if you allow conceal carry in your states, then we're not going to allow this grant. It's a dangerous precedent.
So I'm not willing to put the Constitution in a bad position, to disrespect the Constitution because of the way I would feel about a particular issue. And how I feel about this issue anyway is that I don't think that we should be be blaming the violence in Chicago on the fact that it's a sanctuary city. I think that those are separate issues.
BOOTHE: I didn't conflate those though.
TIMPF: They were in the segment together, so I was saying that they're separate.
WILLIAMS: Fair enough. So ISIS and the Taliban have reportedly joined forces in a deadly attack, massacring at least 50 people. That story and what it could mean for the war on terror. Stay with us.
TIMPF: A dangerous new alliance in the Middle East. Afghanistan officials saying Taliban and ISIS forces joined together to launch an attack there that left 50 people, including children dead. A Taliban spokesman denies the joint terror attack as well as any civilian casualties.
But the possibility of cooperation among the groups could escalate the threat of already dangerous enemies. Colonel, we go to you first on this.
HUNT: Yes. I believe we've been fighting this for 16 years.
HUNT: We're losing the war on terror. We don't care about it, by the way, because it's not the current president. And we're not a ratings issue. I'm glad we're talking about this now.
But we've spent -- we've had thousands of guys killed, tens of thousands wounded, hundred of thousands civilians, and it's not over yet. Because our strategy is -- we have no problem killing. We're very good at it. We don't have a strategy. It hasn't worked. And by the way, no one has been able to get out of Afghanistan.
The problem right now is 40 percent of Afghanistan is back in Taliban/ISIS control. And that's a conservative estimate. We've got 10,000 soldiers there without a policy. And by the way, we haven't had one for 16 years. It's just been "Kill them."
BOOTHE: Can we win the war on terror?
HUNT: Sure. Absolutely we can win the war on terror. But it's got to be a world war, which -- it can't be a U.S.-led -- what we're doing. And it can't be just killing.
We've got 65 million refugees in the world. Twenty-five million of them are kids. You've got to answer failed states and that kind of refugee issue, as well as state sponsor of terrorism. We have been very good since 9/11, killing. But it hasn't changed the war on terror, and you have to get at these bigger issues.
WILLIAMS: And Colonel, what are we doing around the ideology component? Because we all know that, until we stomp that out, we remain, certainly, vulnerable.
HUNT: Nothing. I'm willing to go after the ideology because of the religious issue. But again, 65 million refugees; 25 million of those are kids. And failed states, we have Afghanistan. If we're not careful, 16 years from now, we're going to be talking about a 32-year-old war.
HUNT: And that can't be.
BALL: There are also reports that Iran is now working together with the Taliban.
BALL: Because they want to destabilize Afghanistan, as well.
BALL: I think it's -- you know, this president ran on simple answers and strong leadership is going to solve everything. These are tricky situations. And we can't afford to take our eye off the ball on this one.
TIMPF: But when you talk about 16 years, and you talk about the fact that the U.S.-backed government runs less than 60 percent of the country, I feel like conversations surrounding Afghanistan need to be focused on getting out. I don't -- what have we done that has worked over there? How is our money spent or lives lost been worth it?
HUNT: I've got no issue with what you just said. Want to feel good after that. The problem is still going to be terrorism. We're probably going to need to leave people there to help train and fight terrorism.
But changing governments in Iraq and Afghanistan has not worked.
HUNT: Well, we don't -- I don't mind us fighting the war. But we are terrible, we suck at changing the countries because we want them to look like democracy.
TIMPF: I'm going to quote you on that. That is absolutely true.
WILLIAMS: I agree with him.
BALL: Doesn't know what to do in Syria. Either. On to the next.
HUNT: Should pay attention to Russia. Because Russia is going to control it.
TIMPF: Well, it seems like we're not going to solve this right now.
BOOTHE: On that happy note.
TIMPF: We've got to say goodbye to our specialists, Colonel David Hunt and Krystal Ball. We thank you both so much.
BALL: Thank you for having us. It was fun.
TIMPF: Be sure to check out Krystal's book, "Reversing the Apocalypse," and Colonel Hunt's book, "Without Mercy." Just take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAPHIC: There are moments that test us.
Moments that haunt us.
That define us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Colonel Hunt, thank you for that promo. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us. And up next, we have "Wait, What?" Don't go away.
BOOTHE: Now it's time for the last segment today. It's time for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Wait, What?"
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOOTHE: I'll kick things off. So I've seen the movie "Wedding Crashers," but this is better than that. President Trump, for the second time, crashed a wedding at his New Jersey country club.
You can hear a guest in the background saying, "Oh, my God." He paused for pictures and talked to the lucky couple. So I think it's safe to say, guys, I think we can start calling him the wedding crasher in chief.
WILLIAMS: Yes, I think so. I think that he is certainly making weddings great again.
BOOTHE: I wonder if he would officiate a wedding. That would be something special.
WILLIAMS: Of course he would. Are you kidding me?
BOOTHE: Big league.
WILLIAMS: It's going to be huge. It will be great. I love that.
All right. I'll go next. So my "Wait, What" literally had me, like, "Wait, wait?" over the weekend. I love it when it's that spot on. Literally, like, such a good fit.
So you have to remember the series "Sex in the City." I was a big, huge fan. Cynthia Nixon, the actress that played the character Miranda Hobbes, she is literally in talks to run for governor of New York state.
WILLIAMS: Seriously. Like, that's why I was like "Wait, what?" So apparently, we might have a "Sex in the City" New York type of governor situation.
TIMPF: I kind of hope not. I don't like the show. I hate the show.
WILLIAMS: You hate the show?
TIMPF: Yes, I think it's -- I know it's bad, but I'd rather watch, like, "South Park" than "Sex in the City."
BOOTHE: You might be the only woman in America.
TIMPF: I think I am. I think I am. I never get the -- people are like, "Are you a Carrie or Miranda?" I'm like, "I don't know. I couldn't last longer than, like, for 10 minutes."
BOOTHE: Option D, none of the above.
TIMPF: I have one. I have one. There was a dude in Arizona who tried to go on a little adventure, and he got lost. And he wound up stranded in the desert for three days with only water and beer, for three days. And he survived. You know.
And so two things. First of all, I don't know if it's really a news story. Like, that's my typical weekend: only beer and water for three days. But it does kind of prove my point that beer is a food. I'm sick of people trying to tell me that beer is not a food. It's made from grain.
BOOTHE: Is that the worst-case scenario?
WILLIAMS: What, beer and water?
TIMPF: No, not at all. Sounds like a nice Saturday.
WILLIAMS: Got a lot of substance.
BOOTHE: I would just maybe, you know, want some carbs or something. Maybe some cheese.
TIMPF: Beer is a carb.
WILLIAMS: Get a Blue Moon, and then it has an orange slice in it.
BOOTHE: There you go.
All right. Well, that's all the time we have for today. We thank you all for watching. And make sure to follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on Twitter and on Facebook. And remember, 5 p.m. will never be the same.
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.