on your big boy pants! >> judge jeanine: now, i may be from small town america and i may have worked in a dairy but there are certain beliefs that i learned that i thought were universal. penny saved is penny earned. a watched pot never policies boils. a day's pay for a day's work. the number and enormity.

scandals coming out of the obama white house but with the latest one i think my head did a complete 360. hello and welcome to justice i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for joining us tonight. we find out the irs employees are getting an extra $70 million in bonuses. you heard me right. $70 million hard earned taxpayer dollars. why even give them bonuses? our government is collapsing understand the the way of federal spending but not just spending, irresponsible, unnecessary and foolish spending. money for programs destined for failure like solyndra. money to to countries that hate us and burn us in effigy like libya and money to people that come here to live us and then kill us. it's our money. why give it to people who are already paid an agreed upon salary?

why? because they are in a union? now, without getting into the history of unions. they were formed on conditions in america when conditions were life-threatening. if you think working for the irs is life-threatening i don't know why they are unionized. that ignores the political reality of paybacks in washington. now, i worked in law enforcement for 30 years and i worked my butt off, sometimes 24/7. when i left, i never got a bonus. i didn't even get the watch people talk about. now these irsbozos they are entertaining themselves at $50 million conferences, receipts for which they cannot even produce. wine dancing like a -- line dancing like a bunch of fools and dressed up like a star trek movie.

the people that can't wait audit you, the people that can't wait to intimidate you away our money while they squeeze every nickel and dime out of the rest of us. the irs has proven itself to be vindictive political weapon of this administration. their targets, based on the enemy or the victim of the moment this moment, conservatives, tea party, patriots, pro israel. i truly believe the average american is more afraid of the irs than they are of al-qaeda, but our president is going to make them accountable. >> if in fact irs personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups than

that is outrageous and there is no place for it. they have to be held fully accountable. >> judge jeanine: but mr. president no one has been punished on, fired or held responsible. you give the people who ran the division targeting americans the bonuses. folks, what does that tell you about whether the white house directed the political targeting. that lois lerner, she gets a bonus. the woman says she is not good at math who appears 'before congress and lies to them and then returns to give self-serving statements and then refuses to answers congressional oversight inquiry. she is on vacation this summer. by the way, all of us are paying for it. and sara ingraham targeting political enemies. now we're awarded with plum

obama job. she received six figure bonuses. i have a question how do you decide who gets a bonus? if irs intimidates a political target to squeeze out more money or don't have the money to go toe to toe with them or targets them their life is destroyed because the audit is turned into a criminal one. then it's leaked to the press. is the idea that if these bullies racked up enough money that a percentage then goes into their bonus? what do you mean they only get bonuses if they substantially exceed expectations? what? did you hire a bunch of idiots and now you are show shocked at doing an okay job you want to reward

them? if someone is lucky enough to work for and represent the united states government they should be competent as hell to begin with. yesterday, though, we hear the treasury inspector report the irs sent out $46 million in federal tax refunds to almost 24,000 unauthorized alien workers. and all to the same address. how could these people exceed expectations and not realize that almost 24,000 checks went to the same address? do they really think 24,000 people live in one house? i have an idea. why not put the nsa on the irs for their ingenious for their meta data collection to figure out what a third grader could figure out in a minute. i digress. so who negotiated the bonuses?

the answers, irs and their employees. wait a minute. i'm the sucker who is paying for this. why wasn't i at the table? why so much money? did they bring a mast and a gun to contracted negotiation? police officers put their lives on the day every day. they don't get bonuses. firemen run into burning buildings to save us and we don't pay them enough to live. military men and women come home with limbs blown off and injuries and we don't give them bonuses. we don't even take care of them. veterans administration is year behind in their compensation payments. half of the homeless in this country are veterans. thousands of injured distend to be caretakers for the rest of lives, they don't get a bonus. you decide to give the irsthugs a bonus? what is that?

you say it's already been worked out? the treasury union president carlene kelly says the national treasury employees union is negotiated performance for decades pursuant to the law which authorizes agencies to make such merit based programs. really? merit based programs? you have to incentivize these people? how about they have a job with a salary. how about they get comp time, vacation time, holiday time, pension and healthcare? mr. president, what is that? we are a nation of laws? we have to follow the rules. how about you actually read the collective bargaining agreement. if there is a budget shortfall, you don't have to give them at money. we're going down economic tubes. are the unions that

powerful? it's time to put on your big boy pants and stand up for the bullies. to have the irs, have him stand up and say no bonuses this year, there is a shortfall. what are the unions going to do, screw you? you have held holder, justice department genius, he can handle it. wouldn't it be a little more american to take that $70 million and give it to the men and women returning from your wars with fewer body parts than they left with. even though my head is still sore from that 360 head spin, i still believe what i learned a long time ago in that small town, you get a day's pay for a day's work, nothing more, nothing less. that is the subject of

tonight's poll. should the irs employees be given bonuses. tweet me at judge jeanine and we'll read your answers. up in the sky, it's a bird, its it's an f.b.i. drone. how can that possibly be legal? now we're negotiating with the taliban, i thought we don't negotiate with terrorists?

♪ >> does the f.b.i. currently use drones for what purpose? >> yes, for surveillance. our footprint is very small. we have very few and limited use and we're exploring not only the use but also the necessary guidelines for that use.

>> judge jeanine: robert mueller admitting drones to spy on american citizens. the use of drones on american soil has stirred a great deal of controversy at you would expect. with me is civil liberties attorney and constitutional attorney ann coulter and ladies and gentlemen. i want you to see what i have here. this is a drown. this is real drone. they come in different sizes and they fly up higher. they can go as several hundred feet to 50,000 feet or more for more than 20 hours. they weigh differently depending on whether there are weapons in it or not. this is really high up in the air, you are not going to see it. you fu are a barbecue you would think its bird until the flash goes off.

ann, let's talk about this drone stuff. is it legal? >> well it hasn't been held illegal. what i think of it -- obviously we've heard about cases where it's been used and to great success. think the main issue is the reason we need them is that the immigration service isn't doing their job. with we talk about spying on american citizens. it weighs on american citizens, anwar al-awlaki -- okay technically american citizens like chechnyans were american citizens. >> judge jeanine: i'm worried about a barbecue at my house. do i have to worry a drone. is a drone legal? >> it has to be court approval. we know that you can't have gps technology following a car without car approval.

we can't have planes used infrared looking at houses for marijuana growing without court approval and we can't have dogs up to house without a court order there needs to be court order. >> judge jeanine: reasonable expectation of privacy. there needs to be probable cause? >> any place someone can see you, the drone can look at also. >> what about the drone but i'm not sure what they do. do they follow us around. do they see through the roof and do they see through windows? it's like you might be able to have some kind of x-ray or sensing equipment. >> it would have been useful when they were chasing the marathon bombers. you can only have so many police. the police helicopters could follow the cars and drone can follow a car. >> judge jeanine: but you don't disagree with ann, in

a case like boston marathon bombing, a lockdown situation you than the don't have a problem with a drone? >> without ix gentle circumstances, without probable cause allowed by a court it can't be happening. how far are we going to invade people's privacy to stop crime? if we had cameras on everybody, there would be no drug dealing. it has to stop somewhere and people have to fess up and say, we're going obliterate the fourth amendment through the proper channels to allow this invasion of privacy. >> judge jeanine: we heard robert mueller testify this week. he says the f.b.i. has been deploying drones and i'm not sure who else. they are in the initial stages of developing guidelines. how do we do this without the guidelines?

>> that is right. i keep going back to the root cause of problem which is we are inviting terrorists to come here and live here and become american citizens. i think it's a cheap ploy to say exigent circumstances. what about shooting a cop. what if it weren't exigent. what if they didn't pull out a gun but suspect, it's too expensive to send a helicopter, you ascend drone. it's not simple behavior in these cases. people are sympathetic when they are fighting terrorism. all these american born terrorists. >> judge jeanine: you are not suggesting to keep an eye on terrorism we need to keep an eye on everybody? >> i am suggesting i.n.s.shouldn't be letting in potential terrorists. >> we have to have equal protection of the laws and can't be focusing on non-american born people here.

>> they shouldn't be coming here. >> that is for another time. thanks so much for being with us. coming up, this past week, the u.s. was scheduled to negotiate with the taliban. what could possibly go wrong with that? and later, with n.f.l. star aaron hernandez involved in a heard of a man near his home? ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> judge jeanine: that is toby keith.

according to the command ner chief the war on terror is over. now it's time to negotiate with the taliban. that is right. i said negotiate with the taliban. with me now former counterterrorism agent from tampa and all right gentlemen. why negotiate with these people? >> eric? >> i'm saying don't negotiate with them. obama administration thinking is they want to pack up their bags and go home and get out of afghanistan as soon as possible. i think at the end of the day that is what we're seeing here. we have a history, judge, when it comes with negotiating with the taliban. back in 2006, 2007 pakistani government signed a peace deal with the taliban and their forces. a few months later the pakistani taliban broke the peace deal. they got within 90 miles of

the pakistani capital. if they are breaking a peace deal with the pakistani government what makes us think they will keep a peace deal with? >> judge jeanine: if you have actually negotiated with these people? >> during the war in 2001 we would communicate with them. i don't think there is anything wrong with opening up a channel between us a channel what is being proposed at the moment. they are not reliable and we don't want to negotiate with them. we need to communicate because we have objectives we want to reach. we wanted to release a prisoner and other things we wanted done. of course, qatar is perfect partner to do this with because we need to influence taliban and pakistan and we need the gulf led by qatar on this issue to help us achieve certain strategic objectives. >> judge jeanine: if we

leave afghanistan, what we're talking about, the taliban then and afghanistan and karzai, they couldn't have a meeting because the taliban put up a flag and karzai took offense to it. when we leave aren't we going be on back where we started at 2001? >> if we were going to have discussions with them, the state department, you have them sitting next to us, we have been beating you up. we are going to work with the afghan military. you are not going to win on this battlefield. we're staying and make it clear to them. you don't want to go in bunch of people, you wanted people where i'm living to make strong states to them. that is what the taliban will respect and work with the afghan government to make sure they don't lose. afghan forces will hold. again, i think we should have a channel to them.

we don't want to negotiate and give anything away. >> judge jeanine: they say we want five of our guys in the taliban that are in guantanamo for one of your guys. these five gitmo detainees are like the worst of the worst. they would be last to be released? >> yeah. there is an ugly track record when we release people from gitmo they magicly appear back on the battlefield killing american troops. this has happened several times. at the end of the day i don't know what we get from this. we pulverized the taliban back in 2001 and 2002 after 9/11. ten years later, i have to tell you it's like a game. they will keep popping up every time we hit them. i don't have a lot of faith in afghan services. i personally, if we are there for nation building in afghanistan, it's not going to work.

if we are there to kill terrorists i'm all for it. >> judge jeanine: how do we condition the release of these guys without getting them to reengage? >> we don't want them released. a senator intel chief, his boss is dead. another senior military commander. we can't release them. we don't want to release birdall, they will kill americans the moment they are released. >> judge jeanine: very interesting. thanks for being with us this evening. all right. coming up the latest on the murder investigation surrounding n.f.l. star aaron hernandez. later, i get furious when i see drivers texting. a proposed law could give police more authority to crack down on offenders but some think the law goes too some think the law goes too far.

hi hi ♪(whistling tune) ♪("don't worry be happy")

for all the headlines go to

foxnews.com. >> this is a fox news alert. a flurry of police activity at the home of aaron hernandez who has been linked to a 27-year-old man found dead near his home. cops in and out of the football's player's house but no arrest for a homicide has been made. with me is reporter leslie lowery he joins us from boston. thanks for being with us. what is the latest. >> thanks for having me. state and local police spent three hours searching the massive home of aaron hernandez. they showed up 1:45, came in with police dogs and searched the home as well as the yard. searched his white suv sitting in the driveway. at one point a local watch was brought in but a locksmith was brought in but he left after gone into

the home and then after about three to four hours, police left the home carrying them with half a dozen brown paper bags of possible evidence. it's not quite clear what they are looking for. our sources made it clear this is very likely them carrying out one of the search warrants that has been issued in this murder investigation. >> judge jeanine: they wouldn't have been able to do it without a search warrant. we were hearing a telephone was destroyed, surveillance in the house were destroyed. can you confirm that? >> abc news was the first to report most of those things. we heard similar things but not quite locked down to definitively say he done those things. he had not been late last week been very cooperate have any the investigation. that is what a lot of talk has been about, potential obstruction of justice charge, that he was not being cooperative.

>> judge jeanine: do we know where he is now? >> sitting in his house. he has not emerged from the house and he peered at the media sitting out of his house. he is in there. >> judge jeanine: thanks for joining us. now joining me is senior editor for n.f.l. sports. also mark fuhrman. what do we know about his troubled past? >> he got into a lot of problems in gainesville. there was a police report out there about him when he was in gainesville. he failed some drug tests when he was at the university of florida. the guy got a ten out of ten in one of testing services. one of his weaknesses was the possibility of lifestyle choices could get

him into trouble and it does appear that is the case. >> judge jeanine: what about the latest of someone that suing him for having his eyes shot out by hernandez? >> that is another element right there that is going on. lawsuit was refiled this week. he was out partying with him, he pulled a gun in the car the bullet went up into eyeball. he lost his eye. lawsuit filed this week. we'll see how it ends up going. when police in palm beach initially he refused to name names. this is civil suit, another black mark. >> judge jeanine: i would say so. mark fuhrman, what are you looking for? >> the previous report, judge, of the dogs in the house, it's obvious that the autopsy revealed that the victim was not killed at the location where he was found. he was killed at another loans. they are going to be about a to actually see if they

can find the evidence where the victim was actually killed in that crime scene. i suspect that they used luminol and found traces of blood. it was professionally clean and if reports are true he absolutely destroyed the electronic evidence in his house. so mr. hernandez thinks he is involved in the homicide. i think the obstruction is exactly what he did when he found out that the police were going to actually talk to him. >> judge jeanine: you say hernandez, your point he wouldn't have destroyed the surveillance. mark you know that. you can break the cellphone and they can still get the call? >> they can but we don't know how sophisticated mr. hernandez is with regard to electronics. it's a last ditch effort. he is trying to do whatever he can to destroy the images that are on his phone.

certainly that and the images on the surveillance cameras. that is one thing. that stands by itself. having your home professionally clean, will you never get rid of all of the blood. >> judge jeanine: you would think people would figure this out. bringing in a cleaning service on monday or tuesday. the interesting part of this, alex, you've got roger guidell who has to be watching this in horror. is he going to suspend hernandez? >> i believe that will be coming down the road. they want the legal processing through the process. in fact, aaron hernandez does not have to be charged with a crime ever to be a suspended by the n.f.l. roger could point to egregious circumstances, embarrassment to the n.f.l. putting others in harm's way. he did this with ben roethlisberger.

you know what the quarterback got the message. hasn't been in trouble since. >> judge jeanine: let me ask you, mark, given the connection between hernandez and the dead man apparently hernandez's girlfriend's sister was dating the dead man. do you have any idea what this is about? >> i do not know what it is about. i do know in this. there were two other people with these men seen at the bar. i suspect on surveillance equipment, but then you have two people that left the bar with hernandez and the victim. you not only have circumstantial evidence, you have direct evidence that connects him with probably we can go down to two hours within the time have death. so you are connecting them up and time line is very tight. of course, hernandez, he acted as he did.

>> judge jeanine: alex and mark, thank you so much for being with us. coming up, what do we do to end texting while driving? we'll speak to a woman whose pregnant sister lost her life. and should irs employees be given to bonuses? facebook or tweet me at judge jeanine. dad. how did you get here? i don't know. [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly i as planned.. really?

♪ >> judge jeanine: currently nine states have no law or partial laws against texting while drying. we see them all the time. while they text and drive and consequence to many of us is deadly. with me is new jersey resident angela demato whose sister toni was nine months pregnant who was killed by a driver that was texting while driving. angela, thank you for being with us this evening. our condolences on the loss of your sister. now a new jersey lawmaker has recently introduced legislation to allow cops to confiscate cellphones after a car accident if they suspect they were texting or talking prior to the crash. do you think this might have done some justice for your sister?

>> i think it's going to help tremendously. recently we've passed a law, my family joined forces with two other families and we fought to put in the law to make prosecutors have the proper tools they need to charge them criminally with something like this. the person that hit and killed my sister, he was looking over for a baseball hat after text messaging with someone and then on the phone with him. he said hold on. really quick. i'll look for the hat and looked over for the hit. he served no jail time. his phone records were subpoenaed through records and we don't know if he was under the influence of anything. >> judge jeanine: let me there was no tox screening? >> because it wasn't, now, a reasonable cause.

they didn't suspect he was on drugs even though he actually had prior drug charges against him. they didn't test him for drugs or alcohol that evening. he was charged with $257 in fines and lost his license for a year. my sister and unborn nephew lost their lives. >> when was the last time you saw your sister? >> i saw my sister the night before. we actually spent the entire day. day before we went to to her last appointment and i got to hear the baby's heartbeat. then having to go there and watch her at the scene die and he was texting on the side of the road to see if she was okay. by the time my sister and my mom and got there she was already unconscious. they needed to revive her in order to get the baby out if either one was going

survive. >> judge jeanine: let me did you this. when you see people driving and effects go what you've been through with your sister, how do you feel? >> it's to the point to get out of their way completely. i don't want to be near someone that wants to take someone else's life or their own lives. i give presentations at schools. we started a foundation so we can educate drivers that this can happen to anyone, not just young drivers, not i see drivers all the time. the reason i think it is not invading the fourth amendment, if you get pulled over because you are swerving or you are switching lanes without your turn signal, first thing is cop is going to ask you, have you been drinking. if there is any suspicion

they can breathalyzer and walk and all that. they are not going to admit, yeah i was texting. >> judge jeanine: all right, angela. i want to thank you for being with us. we're going discuss that very issue you are talking about and whether or not the police can confiscated those phones. >> thank you for having me, thank you so much. >> judge jeanine: should the cops be allowed to confiscate a cellphone after a crash? and last chance to vote in our poll, should irs employees be entitled to bonuses? we'll read your answers right after the break. ♪

toxic chemicals and carcinogens are leaching into the environment. it's happening right where we live, work and play. everywhere. cigarette butts are toxic waste. let's stop the toxic litter. learn more at rethinkbutts.org

texting are not up for debate, but when does investigating an accident go too far and infringe on civil liberties. with me is former police commissioner from orlando. now, let me tell you something, guys. i use to run. i will not run on the street because everybody's texting and driving and i don't want to lose a leg for no reason. so we now have this proposal in new jersey that the police can confiscate a cell phone at the scene of an accident. is this legal, commissioner, and will it make a difference? >> i think it will. he can seize the cell site records. to me you're looking at a cell

phone. i seize evidence because you cannot go back to get sniet what do you think? is this something that should be seized? do thaw need probable cause? is the law clear? >> the law should fall under constitutional standards. first of all the law is vague, the law is ambiguous and it gives too much discretion to the law enforcement officer on the scene. it's clearly a violation of the fourth amendment. >> all right. so you're saying if police respond to an accident and there's a phone there, they shouldn't be able to seize the phone. >> no, because it's not contraband, per se. it's not evidence inthe instrumentality of a crime. it's not. >> i wonder if it is. isn't alcohol? when you think about alcohol being an aggravating driving and someone's driving it turns an

accident into an intentional act? >> absolutely, absolutely. if i see any evidence in the car, i'm going to seize it. this is a test of the fourth amendment. if they don't light, the remedy is a motion to suppress. >> how far do you go to seize it? what do you do? check under the seat? does it have to be in plain view? you know, how far. >> again, you mention the expectation of privacy. we don't know whether or not cell phones constitute an expectation of privacy. >> you're right. the supreme court has not been called upon regarding disparate reviews. >> judge, judge, the cell phone is our personal computer. it's our mobile computer we have important information on that cell phone. we have personal da tarks we have banking information, we

have text messages, we have voice messages. we have all sorts of stuff, pictures. do we really want law enforcement to rifle through this information? and where's the firewall? pursuant to this proposed law, they're only supposedly supposed to look at the data. how do they do it? >> commissioner, can't they do it after the fact? can't they actually access the phone then? call nsa. call verizon. >> they can do a letter. they do it all the time. if they're concerned about the cell phone information being destroyed -- >> is a text message self-preserved? no. >> three to seven days according to the carrier. are they really looking at the text message itself or the data history? it has to address data usage.

>> that's a good point. commissioner, if they're looking at the data usage and time, that's something they can get down the road. issue a subpoena. they can get it down the road. >> they can, but it's also physical evidence. if i have a bloody phone, i'd like to walk that phone into a courtroom. >> i bet you would. i bet you would. hesitate to thank that, commissioner. >> we're making the law enforcement officer on the scene a judge. the law enforcement officer is making a judicial daerlgs without a jushl warrant, without probable cause, allowing him to see something that's personal and private. >> we'll see what happens. why new jersey? why is new jersey the only state doing it? people are getting killed left and right young people. anyway. do you know why? >> there's a 10% increase in

deaths because of texting. >> all right. commissioner schembri and mr. sanzone. now it's time for our question. he says, i'm a police officer and i haven't had a raise in five years. they don't deserve it. charles says bonuses for what? spending too much of our money? teresa says make it a severance package and i'll be okay with it. gary says since we're all working for the irs, shouldn't we get a bonus? and beth haven tweets irs employees should only get bonuses based on consumer compliments? you mean if they cut you a deal and break you give them a nice bonus? he says for what? who harasses people the most? that's it. thank for joining us.

we look forward to you joining us next saturday, same time, same place.@í0x;ñt huckabee.

tonight on huckabee. uckabee. rick san dhtitorium has a new job in the private sector. does that moan he is done with politics? >> you will be able to keep your doctor period. and you will be able to cope your health care plan period. doctors are coping their patients and dropping the his honor and eliminating the red tape of obama care can make it better. >> i will post my prices and give my patients what i promise to give them for that price. >> she's backed up elvis and frank and a rethia. darlene love takes center