on his 100th birthday, it is grace is not only has memory but jfk's own definition of something else: courage. good night. >> eboni: i am eboni k. williams with kat timpf and eric bolling. 5:00 will never be the same. we are "the fox news specialists" ." let's meet today's specialist. he is from the government accountability institute, author of "clinton cash." he is also the breitbart news senior editor at large, and he specializes in gun collecting. peter schweizer is here. he's the chair of the medical ethics and health policy at the university of pennsylvania. he's a member of the council on

foreign relations and known as the chief architect behind obamacare, but he specializes in being a chef. dr. ezekiel emanuel is here. i have to ask your favorite dish. >> i have a raspberry rhubarb >> i like shooting lots of guns. i am applying to get a permanent for a fully automatic machine gun. if that comes through in six or seven months, come on down. if i don't think i would handle that well. >> eboni: let's get started. leaks and unmasking in the spotlight during a senate hearing today. this time mike rogers was in the hot seat facing off with senators over illegal leaks and

the role in the controversy around michael flynn. >> somebody took that information that we gained through collection with flynn and gave it to "the washington post" ." >> somehow it got to the media. >> that's a crime. are you concerned about people taking the law into their own hands. >> which is why i've got to my work force in writing and said let's make sure we understand with the professional evils of our organization is. we do not engage in this behavior. if i catch you engaging in this behavior, i will hold you criminally liable. >> eboni: faced tough questions over surveillance and unmasking of the trump team members. >> is there a record of every request made? >> yes. >> there is a record of who made the request to unmask the conversation? there is a record of whether or

not you granted it. >> yes, sir. >> is there a record of what the person did with that information? >> no. >> dude off susan rice asked for an american citizen to be unmasked? speak i would have to pull the data. >> eboni: we saw senator graham reiterating a lot of his concerns from yesterday, and i feel pretty confident he's going to get the list but he is concerned with who these people word. senator john mccain has some very pointed questions today on the issues, the worst-case scenario. how bad this can get. he spoke specifically around going from extrapolating the info to manipulating it. how concerned are you around that escalation? >> very concerned. i have said from the beginning that these russia issues ought to be investigated. i think it needs to be a more broad investigation, not just the trump team. the effort the russians have had

to try to manipulate or steer elections has gone on for quite a while. i think you need to look at the commercial ties with carter page and the commercial ties of people around hillary clinton when she was secretary of state who had commercial deals with the russians. >> let's be clear. it's the people around trumbo had the connections to the russians. >> no. >> flynn talked to them, lied about it. he was in the situation room in talking with vladimir putin and the prime minister of japan, abe. the trump administration did nothing about it. >> kat: reports that russia is doing this to other countries as well. it shouldn't be whether to take down trump or support trump. it's about protecting ourselves as a country. >> the trump administration had 18 days of information that flynn lied to them about talking to the russians, that flynn could be compromised by the russians and was still allowed to be there and be in the situation room with classified

information. >> eboni: i think -- i don't think anyone is defending michael flynn. >> the problem is that it needed to be dealt with. >> it hasn't. >> it is being dealt with. what's not being investigated is when hillary clinton was secretary of state, her husband was taking speaking fees from kremlin-backed banks. john podesta was on the board of a small energy company that received a billion-dollar investment from a private, sorry government investment by vladimir putin. >> you have trump's campaign manager on the payroll of the russians. >> eboni: e, lets you -- let's get you in. >> eric: eboni, you point out that senator lindsey graham led the judicial subcommittee. i have a real problem with what lindsey graham did. what he did was, he brought sally yates, who was fired,

summarily fired off after ten days of acting attorney general. and james clapper, who lied, willingly and knowingly, admittedly lied to a senate panel years ago about whether the nsa was spying on americans but he gave them a huge platform to state their case. my question is this: where was the extensive interview of the clinton -- coat >> cruz. >> eric: john mccain was asking questions as well. john mccain and lindsey graham have been never trumpers. >> they voted with the president every time. >> eric: why do you on the left have a problem -- the real issue here and the only law broken by any measure so far is the leaking of michael flynn's name to "the washington post." yes, it is.

everything else -- >> flynn lied to the vice president, met with the russians, and allowed to stay in the administration for 18 days after they knew he lied. >> eric: the fbi didn't tell them. >> the russians could have turned him. they have information that he lied to. >> eric: i totally respect -- you do realize every u.s. senator, republican or democrat, will meet with the same people michael flynn met with. >> the russians have black male information on him that he lied to the president. >> eric: every senator. >> eboni: we can debate this all day long. do your point, e, about the crimes afoot. we don't know. >> eric: we do.

>> eboni: we don't know -- michael flynn. we don't know that michael flynn is not going to come up. >> michael flynn testified he didn't meet with the russians. >> kat: he's outcome and he should be out, and i don't think anyone is defending that. we should be on the same side of figuring out what happened because it affects us as americans. it is politicized one way or the other. i don't have a horse in the race. i am independent politically. i just don't understand what has been so clinical when svn affects all of us. >> the issue, is this just about general flynn or about investigating russian influence on american block of leaders in the election? if it is the latter, we should look at all instances where that might have occurred, not just neural flynn. that's all i am calling for. if were going to look at donald trump's commercial ties to russia, and his campaign manager, why aren't we looking at it as it relates to the clintons.

>> immediately fired general flynn, suggesting there's compromising information. >> we don't know that. >> eric: what do you have? there's been no evidence of collusion. >> sir, we don't know yet. >> eric: hold on. not fired for colluding with the russian spirit he was fired for lying to that vice president. >> eboni: we don't know that yet, but peter, you make an excellent point. that's one of my questions. we also know both sides of this as there was actual intelligence from the nsa that there was russian interference going back to at least 2015. let's talk about that. why are we hearing about it coming out of this election one there was actual knowledge, real actual knowledge around this going back to 2015? >> i don't know the answer but the fact of the matter is that we put, president obama put sanctions on the russians for meddling in our democracy.

president trump wants to take them off. >> kat: doesn't you not knowing the answer to that question, doesn't it bother you? >> the thing that bothers me the most is someone who the russians have some information on and can black male in the white house come in the situation room. that's having a mole. >> kat: you can be bothered by more than one thing. >> eric: in 2015, he was meeting a doing speeches. you're going to blame trump for an 18 day window. informationsecurity advisor and than anyone else. he is in the situation room. totally different things. >> kat: he is out. >> eboni: we have to go but we will get back to this. one of our specialists was the

architect of obamacare and the other one thinks the g.o.p.'s plan doesn't go far enough to repeal it. as the bill heads to the senate, we will activate it with our specialists. follow us on social media, @specialistsfnc on twitter and facebook. liberty mutual stood with us when a fire destroyed everything in our living room. we replaced it all without touching our savings. yeah, our insurance won't do that. no. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance

♪ >> eric: the left has been in hysterics for days over the house health care bill and as it heads to the senate, liberals are trying to dupe americans into thinking an overhaul would lead to an epic disaster for health care obamacare hasn't already smashed into an iceberg. what the left doesn't want you to know that the senate will likely improve the bill. more access to health care for all americans. here is paul ryan. think of the legislation should not take that long but hopefully it takes a month or two to get through the senate. hopefully it takes a month or two. we need to get people the ability to plan.

insurers are pulling out quickly, and we need to show the insurers there's a better system coming. stay in the market. >> eric: dr. emanuel, we like to highlight your academic career and credentials. amherst university, oxford, harvard medical school where you got your md. phd in political philosophy. >> build them up before you cut them down. >> eric: i did my homework. >> how many books? >> eric: not sure. do you agree obamacare is failing? >> no, obamacare is been more successful than anyone thought. 22 million people covered. health care costs of flattened out. there has been a slow rising premiums than under the bush administration. under the bush administration, employee premiums went up 80%. under the obama administration. quality is improving. there is no effect on employment. medicare trust fund extended for nine years. >> eric: i have pages and

pages of this. from mid-level benchmark plan, healthcare.gov states we are up 25% in premiums in 2017. blue cross blue shield just warned the affordable care marketplaces are in their early stages of a death spiral. >> let's go to what you said. the two things he said. both congressional budget office and standard & poor's evaluated the exchanges and said they are stable. they are going to go on. there are some things, three or four things republicans could do that would stabilize the marketplace. enforce the mandate, give the cost-sharing subsidies. >> kat: the mandate is not incentive. >> eric: peter, in virginia. 50% rate increase for maryland.

northern virginia. 29% increase for the district of columbia next year alone. >> i told a friend i was going to come on and talk about health care. it's like playing pickup basketball with lebron, ezekiel. if you lose bill clinton, the war is lost. bill clinton said last fall that obamacare is crazy. what -- >> he did not say that. >> a crazy system. the example he used is a guy that worked 60 hours and saw his deductible go up and the costs go up. my point is the system is not working. people know it's not working period the problem i have with the reform bill now is gates essentially saying we are going to be half pregnant. we have a fundamental choice. we continue down this direction we are going of greater government intrusion or we decide were going to have a free market oriented health care system. >> under obamacare, what

happens? people go to the marketplace. they choose which insurance company they want and they get subsidized for it. that is the free market at its best. it >> kat: government subsidies are not the free market. >> eight you cannot afford health insurance without the government subsidizing it. the average family premium in the employee sponsored marketplace is $18,000. that's not because of obamacare. >> eric: what is the deductible? >> employer-sponsored insurance, it's pretty low. >> eric: this was supposed to cover nonemployees sponsor people. >> it's expensive because underlying health care costs, not obamacare. and obamacare, it's a free market allowing people to choose which insurance company they want. >> eric: eboni, you remember when they were selling obamacare, saying they are going to have banned the cost curve down. it's done nothing but skyrocket. >> sir, you are absolutely wron

wrong. that's a matter of fact that's incorrect. we have kept health care costs under control for the last five years. as a matter of fact -- >> eric: they skyrocketed and they're going to be worse. >> eric: you are misquoting things. >> eboni: i'm going to speak for my personal experience. i would like nothing more than for health care to come down. as someone who has paid for it myself. subsidies are fine. the only problem i have with them is that they do not benefit the young and healthy. we end up paying significantly more. it becomes unaffordable for us, so for many years i've paid the penalty because it makes more sense to me. it is more affordable for me to pay out of pocket. when i do the math, $700 a month

premium makes no sense. peter, you talked about being half pregnant. i'm going to segue to a problem i have with the senate, 13 men. we are setting up a neco chamber around this bill where you've got strong republican women in states like maine and west virginia were going to politically be able to say i didn't get my say and what this looks like. it might be those two votes. >> kat: so many problems with the republicans version of the bill. i'm not defending it. some things that are problem with obamacare could be worse. the individual mandate is not enough of an incentive for young and healthy people to buy insurance. the republicans say when you go in the market, we will charge you more. i don't see premiums going down. >> i was just in montana

fly-fishing and my guide said to me before obamacare, i was paying $600 for family per month. now under obamacare, he is paying $45 a month, and his wife got treated for breast cancer. it depends on how much you earn. that is the subsidy. >> eric: peter, a lot of this stuff, the increase in premiums and deductibles in '17 and '18. edna is saying they are down to four states. 18 of 23 health care exchanges have gone belly up. >> the exchanges have not gone belly up. very careful about what you speak about and you haven't been careful at all. >> eric: co-opts established by obamacare and failed. speak of the exchanges are not failing. they are stable according to standard and poor. and the congressional budget office. >> eric: it is a spiral

according to blue cross blue shield. >> i can tell you what the problems are. we didn't do enough on cost control. let me say something. speaker ryan's plan, there's not a word in the bill about cost control. >> eboni: i am not impressed with speaker ryan's plan. >> i'm not a health care policy expert. the reality of economics, in any situation that you have a scarce good or service, you're going to have two things happen. either rationing by price and the price is going to be high and it's going to be difficult for some people to afford or you're going to have rationing by a government bureaucrat. that's why i think you have the problem with being half pregnant. were going to face a choice. i think charles krauthammer is right. were going to have to move to a single-payer system which i know you have not been in favor of in the past, or were going to have to fundamentally change the system. we can't do it halfway. if you give people a choice of paying high health care costs

and having that be a barrier or having a government bureaucrat like you have in the u.k. saying we are going to pick and choose who gets service plan. you have 18 week waiting list for major surgeries in the u.k., and the british health medical association has said -- >> there is no waiting list in the netherlands or switzerland. >> kat: we are not like switzerland. you can't compare it. >> you want a free market? right now the average cost per american's $10,000. american families cannot afford a $40,000 to cover themselves under the free market approach. >> kat: we have never had a free market. >> eric: preemptive strike against texas sanctuary cities by the state's attorney general. could their days be numbered? don't mess with texas. we'll be right back. ♪

you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon. and helps keep acid down for hours. usaa gives me the and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life.

are upgrading their watere filter to zerowater. start with water that has a lot of dissolved solids... pour it through brita's two-stage filter... dissolved solids remain! what if we filter it over and over? oh dear. thank goodness zerowater's five-stage filter gets to all zeroes the first time. so maybe it's time to upgrade. get more out of your water. get zerowater.

stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker.

that's the power of and. what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy califo

so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. >> kat: texas is tightening its squeeze on sanctuary cities after a crackdown became state law this weekend. ken paxton is filing a preemptive lawsuit against austin and other sanctuary locations. he explained why earlier today. >> we had heard they were not going to comply. we also heard about other entities not going to comply. instead of waiting for lawsuits around the state and dealing with it over a long period of time, we decided let's get it on. we believe the law is constitutional and we are ready. a similar law was passed in arizona and held up by the supreme court. >> kat: eric, i am assuming you like this. >> eric: i am a fan of pushing

into the states. the governor of the state says were going to uphold federal la law, then guess what. law enforcement is there to uphold the law. >> kat: no cities were listed as lacking in compliance. seems like political posturing. >> eric: 70% reduction in border crossings. as trump points out, the reason why wall needs to go up is not only for illegals, it's for human trafficking. people are coming over. >> kat: i am antihuman trafficking. >> eric: it is god awful. as far sanctuary cities goes, you don't like it in texas? you don't like the governor? vote for someone else or go to california or washington state where the sanctuary policy is alive and kicking. >> i am mystified by this.

the law doesn't go into effect until september 1. how can you begin to prosecute cities for not enforcing the law? it doesn't actually go into effect. as you pointed out, these cities haven't been cited as a noncompliance. i think the attorney general just wants headlines. it's not clear there is any violation. >> eboni: i will answer your question. it's not uncommon to have these preemptive litigation efforts. trying to get in front of it, trying to anticipate for political or other reasons why some people might not comply. my issue is this: he talks about the constitutionality. it's going to be in question not because of the lettering of the law. he is right, but there is a clause in this ban that talks about how law enforcement can ask for papers, immigration papers. when you put that into practice, it can oftentimes discriminatory

because sometimes you have a situation where the probable cause to stop you is the color of your skin. if it starts to go that way, as some people said it did in arizona, they are going to have constitutional challenges. >> kat: how would it not go that way? i don't think they would ask me for my papers. >> there is a fundamental question. do you agree that if the federal government has certain immigration laws, whether cities agree or not, they should enforce them. >> the local police, their main concern is having a safe community. principle number two is you need good community policing. there is no good relationship between the community and the police department, you will have a lot more crime and people won't be reporting crime. what austin is concerned about is that they go out and they are papering everyone. the immigrant community is not going to participate in crime is going to become worse.

>> kat: there is an exception for people who are witnesses to crimes or reporting of crime. >> eboni: the sheriff spoke out about this. the austin area sheriff. she said i don't like it, i don't agree. i do have community concerns but ultimately i will enforce it. >> eric: we, as conservatives, or myself as a conservative, has to applaud what's going on in texas. they are saying we will uphold federal law. california has said we are not going to push sanctuary on anyone. we're not going to push anti-sanctuary on any community. that's fine. that's why elections have consequences. straight down to the governor level, your governor is your ceo of your stage for your governor makes the call. you don't make the call as the mayor of austin, texas, . >> do you really want to say on

the left that local officials now can decide optionally whether they are going to enforce the law? >> kat: they can't be. >> almost all local officials of that if the federal government gives us a warrant or a reason this person is suspected of committing a crime, were going to turn the person over. what they want them to do is -- >> eric: they committed the crime. they came here illegally. >> kat: that's not really the issue. we have to move on. >> eric: this is the issue. if they are going to violate -- >> kat: fighting in afghanistan is escalating as president trump could send 3,000 more troops to the region. is it the right strategy to defeat the taliban? don't go away. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,

isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.

♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here.

>> eric: welcome back to "the fox news specialists." our specialists are peter schweizer and dr. zeke emanuel. donald trump considering a troop surge in afghanistan. pentagon plan would send up to 5,000 more u.s. troops into the fight. white house explains the strategy shift this afternoon. >> one of the things he's asked his national security team to do is think, rethink their strategy appeared what are we doing to achieve the goals? how do we actually, how do we win? how do we eliminate the threat? that's what the team has been doing not just in afghanistan but the total beyond afghanistan, also the way he's asking to look at the threat of isis. it >> eric: spicer was asked if it would mark a broader

change in president trump's foreign policy beliefs. >> i think his priorities remain the same but he's going to do what he can to make sure he protects the country and our people and threats directly affecting the united states. it >> eric: peter, this is one of the things, as a conservative, small government conservative, a touch of libertarianism in me, i don't like the idea. i agree president obama probably declared mission accomplished too soon in afghanistan. i don't think sending more troops. no more americans. >> there aren't any great choices here. had them on the ropes in 2010. they researched, the taliban and here's the issue. do we just not do anything in afghanistan and risk having a situation we have with bin laden where terrorist groups create training grounds and use that to launch sophisticated attacks on the west? or do we try to at least keep them off balance? i thinks what the -- i think

that's what the strategy is. they recognized the american people don't want to send one 100,000 100,000 troops. >> eric: dr. emanuel, and a lot of this could be blamed on barack obama who declared victory in 2014, said "this is over." clearly not over. the taliban is alive and kicking. >> it was george bush who invaded afghanistan. >> eric: obama ended the war in 2014. >> president trump said let's pull the troops out as soon as possible, and he was all for pulling the troops out. my perspective is afghanistan has defeated many other countries. britain, the russians. we have been there for 15 years. it's not a good investment. the question is, is 5,000 troops going to make a difference? we had way more troops there and i seriously doubt 5,000 troops

was going to make a difference even with a changed strategy. >> kat: condoleezza rice asked the strategy. 15 years, hundreds of billions of dollars. it's not that simple. this isn't like laser tag. if you are on the red team, the blue team, then you win. it's so much more complicated. we have been thrown many resources added and getting nothing in return. >> eric: $5 trillion, 2300 lives. is it time to let them let them be them? >> eboni: i appreciate the strategy and the thought behind it they put 100,000 troops on the ground and we saw no return. peter, when you talk about your son reporting in a matter of days to serve this country, i would want that investment to be something worthwhile. so we get a real return.

i'm not convinced respectfully to president trump that it's going to bring us back. one condoleezza rice talks about it, i'm asking the same questions. >> they will -- those are fair questions paired what is the mission? the strategy under bush and obama was essentially nationbuilding and trying to bring the caravan to the negotiating table. the history of getting radical movements, islamist or otherwise to come to the negotiating table is extremely difficult. >> the history of beating guerillas is not very good. 5,000 troops are neither here nor there. that's a serious problem. we don't have a strategy. the president has never articulated it. >> eric: what was president obama's strategy other than i'm going to get us out of all the conflicts. way too early, what he did in

iraq and we are finding out later really in afghanistan. >> i'm not sure i agree it's way too early in afghanistan. it's not clear that there is a strategy to win in afghanistan. >> kat: how long are we going to stay there? we haven't accomplished anything. >> do we really want to create a circumstance where in afghanistan you have terrorist groups creating the info structure that allowed them to god forbid conduct another 9/11 in the united states? that is the cost. >> eboni: do these 5,000 troops give us a different outcome? i don't know but it's a fair question. >> kat: how long do we stay there? ten years, 15, forever? >> should we be spending money there and getting nothing? >> eric: we have breaking news. we are not going to take this commercial break. james comey is resigning. is that what you're telling me?

james comey has announced he is going to step down as head of the fbi. he has been under a lot of scrutiny back and forth with the clinton's, hillary clinton's emails. the left will blame comey for trump's win. your thoughts. >> i have a sense this is probably based on his testimony where apparently he made a statement that was not accurate, whether it was that intentional or a slip of the tongue, who knows. it basically came out that he claimed thousands of emails huma abedin had forwarded to, that's not correct. it was a dozen or six or whatever. he had eight very, very difficult job. i personally think he should have been much more robust in investigating the clinton emails and he should have at least convened a grand jury to let voters decide. i also think from my experience there was an investigation of the clinton foundation but there was a lot of resistance from the top. it was a good idea for him to

resign but it's a very difficult job for anyone to step into at this point. >> eric: i can't remember any of the intel services having such a high profile as james comey. >> j. edgar hoover had a very high profile but beyond that the fact is this is a guy who violated the rules inside the fbi and the justice department by announcing an investigation 11 days before an election. >> that's not what he did. >> he did. potentially throwing the election. the polling is pretty clear on that. >> eric: i will let you finish but we are being told, sean spicer has told the press that the president has accepted the attorney general's recommendation to dismiss james comey. your thoughts now? he has been dismissed. >> i don't know what he thinks james comey is doing then. >> eboni: i will say this. i think i've talked on this program a lot about restoring

credibility to our government agencies, particularly the department of justice. it's an important first step. i defended james comey for a long time, a longgh the election and ultimately with what peter talked about today, the misstatement of facts, whether intentional or not, the sloppiness of the investigation with hillary. all of it, it's a mess. this will go a long way in rehabbing the credibility. >> eric: let me get kat. >> kat: no one trusts the doj. maybe they misspoke. i don't trust anybody except for my dad at this point. i watch these hearings and say do you really think so? you are saying this goes back to him announcing the investigation but i don't think that had much to do with it. that would have been a politically motivated -- >> two months before the election, it's a long-standing rule of the justice department. >> a week before he testified on capitol hill under oath and he

made the statement there was no ongoing investigation on email. it was over. new information presented itself. at that point, he was in a situation where he was either in effect lying to congress are not giving them the full information. he had no alternative really other than to inform the committee, which is what he did. it was clearing up his testimon testimony. >> talk about leaks. everyone knows making an announcement -- >> no, he would have faced -- >> the effect of the matter is there's a long-standing rule no public comments on ongoing investigations are no investigations in the last two months before an election. >> eric: can we talk -- >> well known he violated that norm. >> eric: there was a lot of discussion of whether or not james comey has lost the trust of the investigators. he has thousands of investigators. at one point, they were saying we are telling you one thing and you are saying another thing.

they were telling james comey they found enough to indict hillary clinton and he recommended no indictment. >> eboni: that's why i think this is a good move. if you are an attorney working for the doj, this is a problem because you don't feel respected by her boss. you don't feel like your input is being valued. that's what i'm saying. depending on who his replacement is. this is an important way to regain credibility because i don't think anyone was very excited. >> kat: with the american people too. like you can say anything and get away with it. break as many rules as he wants, especially in the doj. i feel that way and i think most people do. >> eric: ed henry emailed us. "today president donald j. trump informed fbi director james comey he has been terminated and removed from office." from sean spicer. >> usually a 10-year period,

it's not a political office. this is way ahead and it's a political move. i think the real question is who he replaces him with and is the individual above reproach? and with a huge amount of integrity. i think it's going to be a real test for the independence of the fbi. >> eric: who does he bring in? you have the attorney general talking about bringing someone in. fbi director works for the attorney general. today hire from within or someone from the outside? >> you want to have some money -- someone who is independent. this is a thankless job. you are stepping into a circumstances where there are number of investigations going on that are very sensitive, very difficult. not an easy task. i'm hopeful they're going to make a good choice and let's hope it's somebody that comes in that handles some of these matters better than comey did. it was clumsiness no matter in

which he handled things. then he would try to correct the record in some way. more confusion. the testimony was the final statement. if you're going to make a misstatement, making them a statement that someone forwarded thousands of emails. that's a huge mistake. stick with the real test is are there going to get someone who s nonpolitical? >> kat: it's a little impossible. >> eboni: it's not. i hope they hire and internal candidate. there are good men and women who work for the doj. they take pride in what they do and want to restore the credibility of the office and they are above politics. they don't appreciate that their office has become a political mechanism. >> eric: mark noller says "white house as they search for a new director will begin

immediately." president trump calls it "a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement." chief investigative body in america. very important. that was a big thing. you remember during this hillary clinton email scandal, agents in the field just lost faith in their leaders. >> it's exactly right and think of the reversal that took place here. when jim comey was appointed, everybody was saying this was the guy that sort of straight arrow, and the investigation with hillary clinton was going on. you had the democrats that were saying this is terrible and then they said he's not going to charge. they all thought he was great. among conservatives, it was a similar reversal the other way, so i think comey had a difficult time but he clearly was not up to the task in the way a lot of people thought he would be. >> i have two criteria for a replacement for the person has to have a long-standing record of high integrity.

and the person has to be nonpartisan. i think you do not want to get a partisan person in the job. i think the president has to stick to those criteria. if we don't get those two criteria, it will be a sad day for the country. >> eric: do you think comey was partisan or nonpartisan? >> he was able republican. the problem is he defended everybody on both sides and he did things which looked very partisan like making an announcement to the public 11 days before an election. >> eric: senator lindsey graham tweeted "given the controversy, i believe a fresh start will serve the fbi and the nation well." >> kat: i agree. i don't know how much could this will do. people distrust the office now. i think it's been so bad that people distrust the office. it's going to have to be someone clearly nonpartisan and without a cycle of suspicion. that's going to be really

difficult. >> we've had a long decline in our trust in institutions, and this country needs to regain trust in institutions. i think that should be our chief concern here. does the person bring the kind of credentials to it that's going to restore the trust of the american people in the institution of the fbi? and in other government agencies. i think this actually is a big problem because what we are saying is an attempt to destroy and undermine a lot of allegiance to institutions. >> eboni: i think it has been pretty successful, more than just intent. >> eric: this is from president trump. "dear director called me, i have received the attached letters from attorney general and deputy attorney general recommending your dismissal as they director of the federal bureau investigation. i've accepted the recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office effective immediately." this is big stuff, you guys. "i appreciate you informing me

on these separate occasions that i'm not under investigation. i nevertheless concur with the judgment of the department of justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau." that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau. let me repeat. it's essential we find new leadership for the fbi that restores public trust and confidence in its vital mission. he points out, donald trump, the president, that he's not under investigation. >> kat: he had to get that in there. >> eric: you don't wanted to look like you're dismissing the director of the fbi because you are under investigation. >> first 100 days of your administration, it is sad of people think you are under investigation. that's a bad comment on the current situation. >> kat: he couldn't say no in his testimony a couple weeks ago. >> eboni: i think he put it in there for a couple different

reasons but ultimately i will say i think it's probably one of the best decisions i've scene from president trump. we absolutely have to start ove over. horrified by the sacrifice of credibility in these departments. intelligence agencies, , do g. >> i had a lot of meetings with fbi people as far as the investigation was concern. the people i dealt with were very professional, having want to do the right thing. whoever they are investigating, the president or secretary of state or whether it's a lurker who has violated a crime. i think there is the parsing and maneuvering that took place under jim comey frustrated a lot of people. >> eric: we have catherine herridge on capitol hill. can you hear us? >> i can. i just got off the phone with a former senior fbi official who said to me that he had been

sharing some text with people inside the bureau. there was no indication at the bureau he believes that director comey was going to be fire this afternoon by the president. he indicated that if comey had a heads up, it would have been telegraphed in some way internally and he would have taken the opportunity to tell the fbi workforce first. but apparently that was not the case. i am struck by this letter that has been released by the white house to director comey and there are several things here that jump out at me. one is that they decision, according to the letter, to fire the fbi director was based on letters attached from the attorney general, jeff sessions, and the deputy attorney general, that they have recommended against, they recommended for comey's dismissal as the director of the fbi on the basis that he cannot effectively lead the organization. what i would say, as means of a

back story, that there has been a sense among courier fbi agents that the director had boxed himself in for he had created a lot of enemies on the democratic side and then also on the republican side, the republican side for not pursuing criminal charges against hillary clinton for the mishandling of classified information in the lead up to the presidential election and then also on the democratic side for not being forthcoming last year about the existence of a counterintelligence investigation that was being run by the fbi into alleged contacts between members of the trump team and also moscow. we have confirmation from the white house that the fbi director was fired by the president at the recommendation of his attorney general and the deputy attorney general, and that is effective immediately. based on my reporting, there was no indication at the bureau today that that was going to go down. >> eric: thank you very much. quickly, sean spicer was about

40 minutes late to the press briefing. i wonder if they were talking about it. >> kat: he had some stuff going on. >> eric: how do you answer something like that? >> that's right. i'm i think this experience shows a tremendous confidence president trump is putting in the attorney general jeff sessions because the attorney general writes the letter and it sounds like it was a pretty good decision. not a lot of deliberation. she was a lot of confidence in senator jeff sessions, the attorney general. >> those kind of decisions would have been much more, taken more time and been more thoroughly investigated before it happened, based on my time in the white house. the question of whether the president is making too many rash decisions. >> eric: attorney general and deputy attorney general. >> eboni: i think this has been a long time coming. >> kat: i disagree that it's a rash decision. >> eric: thank you to our

specialist, brad buyers coming up next with "special report" with massive breaking news, as we said. fbi director james comey has been fired by the trump administration. take it away, bret. >> bret: this is a fox news alert. i am bret baier in washington. moments ago, breaking news that no one saw coming today. we learned president trump has fired fbi director james comey. this comes just moments after the bureau issued a correction to a statement comey made to congress last week about the hillary clinton email investigation, and it is the latest chapter in what has been an extremely rocky tenure for the nation's top law-enforcement official. the news breaking 15 minutes ago, coming from the white house for that's where we had. she white house correspondent john roberts starts us off tonight. this is obviously earth shattering. >> to say no one saw it coming