i hate traffic. and i hate traffic jams. i hate them, because they slow me down. slow is not my speed. but what i hate even more is the hypocrisy of the obama administration, especially when it comes to justice. hello, and welcome to "justice." i'm judge jeanine pirro. thank you for being with us. slow, however, would be the obama administration speed. it was one year ago that four americans, including our ambassador, were massacred in benghazi. weeks later, the fbi shows up to investigate a trampled crime scene. now, i don't know about you, but

i still haven't seen anyone prosecuted or even in custody, but president obama's going to get to the bottom of it. >> we will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act, and make no mistake, justice will be done. >> eight months ago, we find out the internal revenue service is targeting the president's political opponents in the midst of a close presidential election. accountability was supposed to be swift and certain. >> if, in fact, irs personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous, and there's no place for it. and, you know, they have to be held fully accountable.

>> right. i know criminal justice, and i would expect the fbi to be the agency investigating the irs. but then, i would be wrong. take a listen to what robert mueller, the then head of the fbi, had to say. >> can you tell me how many agent investigators you've assigned to the case? >> may be able to do that, but i'll have to get back to you. >> can you tell me who the lead investigator is? >> off the top of my head, no. >> this is the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you don't know who's heading up the case, who the lead investigator is? >> at this juncture, no, i don't know. >> we have four americans murdered. countless other americans targeted by the irs for their political beliefs. no special prosecutor, no investigation, no one even questioned. enter chris christie and the george washington bridge. >> i didn't know about it, but it's my responsibility, because i'm the governor. i found this out at 8:50 yesterday morning.

by 9:00 this morning, bridget kelly was fired. by 7:00 yesterday evening, bill steppian was asked to leave my organization. that's pretty swift action. >> kind of refreshing, isn't it? a chief executive having at least the balls to get out there, face the music, hold people accountable, fire them, apologize, and take responsibility. now, i don't take a position with respect to the so-called scandal, which, by the way, has garnered more coverage by the left than benghazi and the irs combined. time will tell. but what i do know is that chris christie has presented more cases to federal grand juries than your average politician. my point? there is no way he's going to put himself on the line without being absolutely certain of his noninvolvement. but here's the shocker.

within 24 hours of chris christie's statement, the obama administration, known for its love of slow speed, six, the united states attorney in new jersey, on chris christie, by starting a federal criminal probe. really? benghazi, four dead, nothing. the irs violating the constitutional rights of americans, irs employees taking the fifth, nothing. and don't tell me that a traffic j jam, as annoying as it might be, comes anywhere near the massacre in benghazi or the irs scandal. mr. president, you're kidding, right? there's a saying that justice is blind, but it must be swift and certain. you, who promised to give us the most transparent administration in history, and level the

playing field, and yet your appointee investigates a traffic jam as a federal criminal probe in less than 24 hours? but it gets worse, folks. pohl fishman, the united states attorney in new jersey, trumpets his investigation. now, folks, i was the chief law enforcement officer in my county for years, and i worked with the feds, shared resources with the feds, and have even been investigated by the feds. i know their m.o. they do not confirm nor deny investigations. their mantra is that they are so objective and so nonpartisan that they would never implicate someone before an indictment. i guess the rules are different, though, in the obama administration. as mr. fishman trumpets his investigation of a potential presidential candidate from the

opposing party over a bridge-lane closure. really? and by the way, mr. fishman has a long history of donating to the democratic party, and in six years has contributed more than $12,000. and this week, the administration says that they begun that irs investigation. the only problem, the new director of the fbi, james comey, doesn't even know who the prosecutor is who's running the investigation. and her name only surfaced after lawyers for the irs victims claimed the fbi was dragging its feet, their clients not even questioned. miraculously, the next day we find out who this mystery person is. is it a special prosecutor appointed by the attorney general? no. is it someone well known for rising above politics? no.

but then again, why would eric holder appoint a special prosecutor who might look at him for perjurying himself a few times in front of congress? so who is this person? she's contributed more than $6,000 to president obama's campaigns on a salary of $150,000 a year. barbara bosserman, an avowed political supporter of obama, now heads up the justice department probe of political targeting and the irs, which could only implicate the obama administration. so when asked about the absurdity of this appointment, and her loyalties to the president, eric holder's office says, it would have been inappropriate for us to take her political leanings into account. you're kidding, right? you don't think this is a conflict of interest, that it gives the appearance of impropriety, that it causes the public to lose faith in our system of justice?

but, hey, at least there's good news on the benghazi front. just yesterday, our state department said al qaeda was not involved. now, there's a shock. first, it couldn't be al qaeda, because they were on the run. and then, it couldn't be al qaeda, because it was that video. and then, it couldn't be al qaeda, because it was a spontaneous demonstration. and now, a year and four months later, we find out that it's not al qaeda. how about you tell me something i don't know? so here we are. prosecutorial resources directed not against the killers of americans or the violators of the constitution, but instead against this democratic administration's political rival. i have been a longtime prosecutor, and i have spent my career in the assignment of blame, making those who violate

the law responsible and accountable. i know the role of a prosecutor. it is not a political one. the role of a prosecutor is to do justice. he or she may prosecute with vigor, and while he or she may strike hard blows, he or she is not at liberty to strike foul ones. justice cannot be fuelled by partisan presidential politics. shame on you, mr. president. and coming up, former united states senator scott brown's take on the bridge, and duty, former secretary of defense gates' new book, and our poll tonight, what are the odds of an obama employee making anyone at the irs accountable? facebook or twee@w@wowowpg÷÷og

here with me, former massachusetts senator and fox news contributor scott brown. all right, senator, what do you think of an obama appointee, a federal prosecutor, zeroing in on a republican governor within 24 hours? >> shocked, judge. i mean, the fact that they can actually do something so quickly. they haven't done it before, but here they are doing it now. as you noted in your opening, don't forget fast and furious, too. there's a lot of unanswered questions there. we're all waiting to hear what they're going to do, and they have a habit of being -- >> you know what i find most shocking about fast and furious, is that the justice department sealed that whole indictment file, which is generally public information once the things start getting hot. so you're a lawyer. you understand how this stuff works. >> yeah. >> there's no shame here. >> listen, there's a complete lack of trust between the american people and the obama

administration. i called for eric holder's firing many times. it's an embarrassment, and obviously they need to focus on the things that matter, and those are the couple of things you talked about. don't forget the obamacare rollout and the fact we paid $7 million to an entity that screwed it up. >> cgi. >> and paying another entity more money. nobody's been held accountable. no heads are rolling. >> nobody cares. >> a lot of people -- nobody in the administration cares, right. the american people do. >> let me back up for a second. chris christie. >> yes. >> now, i was d.a. when he was the united states attorney. you know chris christie. >> very well. >> what do you think of that whole thing? >> i think he like many other businesses and individuals, we have people who work for us and they screw up. obviously, somebody screwed up, he found out, he immediately handled it, i thought with integrity and discipline, and the fact he did it so quickly, it's an example of what the president should be doing with a lot of the things that you're referring to right now. >> all right. and what about now this new book, secretary gates' book, which is a scathing, i think,

indictment of the president in some ways and hillary clinton, as well. do you think that a secretary should be able to write a book while that president is still in office? >> he's still in america, not working there, he served his country and served it for decades. he can do whatever he wants. the fact he's speaking honestly and openly, i know the second. i've spoken to imhad. i've been in hearings as one of the ranking members of armed services, and he's a great guy. i know every person who goes before congress, they're handcuffed and they don't speak freely. he probably felt liberated and it's good to know. >> you know what's interesting, is that he's respected by -- >> everybody. >> -- both sides. he was with bush and he was with obama. you know, he's someone who when he describes the frustration and, you know, he had to use everything within him to not blow up so many times. >> yeah. >> i mean, did you ever feel that way when you were -- >> absolutely. absolutely. as a republican from massachusetts, i'm getting battled from the left and the right, of course, i felt that way.

in his situation, i know for a fact that a lot of the generals and other folks who go before congress look at -- look at one of the generals passed out because he didn't want to go and take a bathroom break, as you know, general petraeus, i was there that hearing. passed out right there. there's so much pressure -- >> how do you know because it was -- >> because he told us. he wasn't dehydrated. he was dehydrated because he wouldn't drink, and as a result, he passed out. now, the policy is you -- >> you know, we were going to take a little bit about -- let's get to something here. >> all right. >> gates writes in the book, hillary told the president that her opposition to the 2007 surge in iraq had been political, because she was facing a him in the iowa primary, and this is gates, to hear the two of them making these admissions and in front of me was as surprising as it was dismaying. >> i don't think there's any question that people love our

troops, but in terms of the mission, i don't think it's any secret that the president was not in support of the mission itself. i think it's spot on. >> but how does a president, who get as nobel peace prize, remember, and then goes into afghanistan, and, you know, dithers back and forth about the surge, not the surge, you know, not be sure of it and sending americans into harm's way? >> as i said before, there's a complete lack of trust between the american people and the president, as evidenced right now with the low poll numbers and a lot of other things that are happening. listen, i think the book is going to get a lot of great coverage. i'm looking forward to reading it myself. i thought what was more interesting how he portrayed the vice president. >> joe biden? >> my experience with the vice president is that the president often checks out with tax extenders, a lot of the financial issues in our country, and if not for the vice president, mitch mcconnell actually getting together, we never would have had deals that dealt with a lot of the issues. i found that a little bit interesting. >> that,of course, the idea that

joe biden has been wrong on any foreign policy issue for the last 40 years. >> yeah, i was surprised by that. >> all right. let's talk about you for a moment. did you move yet? >> yeah, new hampshire resident two weeks yesterday. >> all right. two weeks yesterday. you're living in new hampshire. does that mean you're going to run for the united states senate from new hampshire? >> i'm not sure. i'm really not sure. if people want to know, obviously, but there's no time frame. i have to get settled. i'm still packing -- unpacking boxes. >> yeah, i know all of that. all right. did you like being a united states senator? >> i was honored. it was an honor. somebody like me, lived in 17 houses, got caught stealing at 1, to think someone like me could be -- i was the guy that would go before people like you. >> do you miss it? >> i don't miss the dysfunctional nature and the way they don't do the people's business. it's so petty and partisan. you have harry reid, chuck schumer, already running negative ads against me in new hampshire, and talking about

things not true, and they expect me to go down there and do the people's business when it's so partisan. as well as an honor, judge, i tell you what, they need to do it better. the people deserve better. >> all right, scott brown, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> and coming up, al qaeda is on the rise and gaining strength. why we need to worry, next.

former defense secretary robert gates' tell-all memoir has rocked the white house this week. here with his reaction, former advisor to the u.k. ministry of defense, michael kay. now, michael, thanks for being with us. you are a retired lieutenant colonel and a former advisor to the u.k. ministry of defense. >> i am. >> and i was reading that you

flew an assault helicopter? >> yeah, i did, did operational tools of duty, three in baghdad, crossed the border in 2003. i've been between bazram, fallujah, kabul, i've been all over the place. >> this book that just came out, which is a bombshell, and it comes out actually next week, talks about a president who isn't sure of his own surge strategy, sending people into afghanistan. how does that make someone who is in the military when it comes to his own boss, the person sending him in, not even being sure they should be there? >> as a military person, you've got to understand that you are just a tool of foreign policy. and so, you're there at the whim of your lords and masters, which in this case are the politicians, and in the u.s. case, the administration. if a military guy, in you're in country and you're fighting a war that the politicians don't actually believe in, it makes life a lot more difficult for you from a psychological perspective. but that said, you know, i've

got some real issues with afghanistan, because in 2001, i think the u.s. actually achieved the mission three to four months after 9/11, and that was to destroy the al qaeda camps in afghanistan. and the u.s. did that supremely effectively. where then we went wrong was this notion of providing a security blanket, a rule of law in rebuilding the country over the political, economic, and the security lines of the development. that's really difficult. >> you know, when we do things like that, michael, the united kingdom is very much a partner of the united states in these things. >> absolutely, 100%. >> so, i mean, did you question it then? the whole idea of going into afghanistan, which is ruled by the tribal organizations, you know, this one living in a cave and that one living in aive ka, i mean, were you uncertain of that yourself? >> yeah, personally, you know, a lot of my guys questioned it. the reason for that, you have to look back to the insurgency in vietnam. you have to look at the soviets going into afghanistan in the 1980s, who walked away with

their tail between their legs, and look at the way we didn't achieve the objectives in iraq. you have to look at the history. for me, the key thing the west needs to get their head around is that the domestic populations will of the occupying force -- so, for instance, in this case, the u.s. public or the u.k. public -- their will will shatter sooner than any insurgent will will, because it's a fight for national survival. if you had insurgents coming across the national borders of america, people in this country would fight for decades and decades to ensure the safety and security of the homeland. >> yeah. >> flip it on its head, that's exactly what the taliban are doing in afghanistan. >> you talked about iraq. change gears a little bit as it relates to fallujah. now, you know, fallujah, and when was it, four americans burned and hung from a bridge there. now, we have al qaeda flags flying over fallujah, after all the men and women who were killed and maimed in iraq.

i mean, what should -- what was the point? >> well, this isn't a surprise to me, judge. >> why? >> the reason it's not a price is because iraq is connected to syria. like afghanistan's connected to pakistan. what happens is that al qaeda thrive in ungoverned spaces. and the leader of al qaeda in iraq, baghdadi, has moved to syria to regenerate the al qaeda cause in the form of isis. >> he's the guy against assad in syria? >> yeah, they're the guys colluding with the fsa, the interfrictions there. >> the syrian army. >> right. but what's going on in iraq, in terms of the al qaeda in fallujah, it's not a military issue. it's a political issue. the reason i say that, you have a divisive shia prime minister in maliki who sentenced his sunni vice president to death a couple of years ago. this is created sectarian hatred between shia and sunni within iraq, so then you can't overlay

a western military force -- >> on top of that. >> -- on top of what's a broken -- >> and i have a feeling, michael, going forward, this country will learn more when shia, sunni, and -- >> i agree. let's stop putting a band-aid over a huge, gaping wound. let's look at the problem. >> and look at what we're doing there in the first place. anyway, michael kay, thank you for being here. >> good to see you, judge. >> you, as well. who is the obama crony picked to lead the irs investigation? stay with us. sick from

tap water. now "justice." just when you think it can't get any worse, it does. after months of doing nothing, the justice department backs into an investigation after irs victims complained they haven't even been interviewed. obama appointed a donor, a crony, an employee, barbara bosserman. i feel so much better now.

with me is the executive director of the american center for law and justice, jordan sekelow. jordan, are they kidding? >> well, i mean, listen, you said it gets worse. it's a scandal within a scandal. judge, it took seven months before the department of justice or the fbi even began contacting any of our 41 clients. it happened at the very end of last year, very end of december. and barbara bosserman was involved. and so, that questioning was, will she be part of -- will we do fbi interviews? will we have our clients sit down? and then, we, of course, the day after this scandal breaks -- this make it is better -- the day after it breaks this week, we get an e-mail from one of the justice attorneys, get an e-mail, saying, have you decided if you'll set up the interviews with the fbi and the clients? and we took a day, and we've written back so far, so there's correspondence ongoing, we're totally re-evaluating whether we'll move forward to help their criminal investigation because

of ms. bosserman's political background, over $6,000 to obama alone. and just perspective-wise, less than one-half of 1% of americans give more than $200 aer. >> craig:. >> let me tell you something, there's no question that this person has a conflict of interest. she's getting paid by the obama administration. she's paid the administration to be there. but at the same time, do victims have a right to choose who the prosecutor should be? >> well, the attorney, as you know, judge, has responsibilities. we're looking at that as well. we want to help this investigation, at the same time we don't want to risk our clients who se-- i mean, think about the intimidation factor. they know if they're going to sit across the table, she's someone that fundamentally disagrees -- of course, she could switch that and end up saying, our clients violated something. that's what happens when you start cooperating with these. so she -- so we're looking at the ethics. if they want to handle this, she

can back away. as i was saying, less than one-half of 1% of americans donate $200 to a federal candidate in an election site. she donated the max amount each time for obama. so with that in mind, as an attorney, you'd think she'd step away. >> i think anyone with half a brain would disagree with you. the woman is working within the agency she's supposed to be investigating. and she paid money to get in there, and it's an enormous amount of money compared to how much she makes. who should investigate this case? >> you know, i've said this, and i think it's clear and fair, if this was someone who gave a couple hundred dollars or each election -- >> who should investigate this? >> well, i think -- the department of justice, we want this investigation to move forward. but we are now thinking that the idea of the special prosecutor and creating that independent prosecutor again may be necessary here, because this administration dragged their feet and seven months into it, when they finally got started, we find out that they choose a partisan, even from the bureaucracy. and that's about -- that's as partisan as you can get, being a

bureaucrat, by maxing out your donations, which you have the right to do. but she's also got the legal obligations as an attorney when there's a conflict of interest, when it can prejudice the investigation, why not step away so that we get to the bottom of it? it doesn't look good for the department of justice. it certainly makes the fbi look like they're following political orders instead of doing their job. >> well, and with respect to the fbi, i mean, you had the old i fbi, the head of the fbi, who didn't even know anything about it. >> sure. >> and jim comey, a terrific prosecutor, now head of the fbi, says he doesn't even know who's -- who's handling or running the investigation. anyway, jordan, thanks so much for being with us. >> thanks, judge. with me now, republican strategist ford o'connell and democratic strategist ebony williams. all right, ebony, how does this administration appoint someone who is an obama loyalist to investigate the obama administration's own irs? >> well, here's the thing, judge, you and i both know as attorneys that you are bound ethically to do your job

regardless of partisan leanings. and i feel like in the absence of evidence that suggests otherwise, i don't understand why attorney bosserman is being persecuted prematurely for being politically active. i mean -- >> ebony, i have to totally disagree. >> go ahead. go ahead. >> ebony, under the model rules of professional rule 1.7, she meets the conflict of interest. she should be removed. it should go to a special prosecutor, and, judge, to your question, it should be patrick fitzgerald, u.s. attorney's office, known for being tough on corruption, and served both republicans and democrats. patrick fitzgerald has my vote as a special prosecutor. >> you know, ebony, when you say that we're both lawyers, i think you recognize that even -- >> all three of us. >> -- justice of the united states supreme court said prosecutors have an additional responsibility, not that they're better than lawyers necessarily, but they have a higher burden. and the appearance of impropriety is one that we need to stay away from. so, ford, how can anyone be

confident with a prosecutor like this? >> well, they can't be, and that's the point. she has an ethical duty under 1.7 of the professional conduct rules to essentially remove herself. the doj has no legal call to actually remove her, and that's where it comes, it comes on mrs. bosserman's part, and that's why she needs to recuse herself. we need to get this to the heart like chris christie had quick, decisive action to bridgegate. >> ebony, chris christie and bridgegate. what do you think of that? >> well, look, i think chris christie is responding as the prosecutor we know him to be, right? that's his style. he's pretty abrupt. you know, i don't really fault him for the way he's handling it. but i also think to compare the way chris christie is responding to his state issue to the way the president or any other federal leader is responding to massive, complex federal things is misguided and it's a false equivalency, judge. those are apples and oranges.

>> wait a minute, wait a minute. justice is the same, whether it is a federal or a state issue. i mean, you're not suggesting that the death of four americans is not as serious as, you know, a bridge closure, are you? >> oh, absolutely not, judge. i mean, i absolutely empathize and am also looking for answers for the families of chris stevens and the other three that died in the horrible tragedy in benghazi, judge. but what i am saying, and we all three know, that the protocol dictated are very different, and they unfortunately move a lot slower than -- >> ebony, i have to stop with you. you want toprotocol, then you don't trumpet you are investigating. i have worked with the feds for 30 years. they always say, we do not confirm or deny, and now all of a sudden, within 24 hours of chris christie doing a press conference, the feds are trumpeting they're doing a federal probe. >> and that's exactly right.

this is about leadership. president obama showed no leadership unless it benefits his political interests. and that's the point. chris christie took decisive action, and that's what americans want. he may still be found guilty of this, but the point is, he took leadership and quick, decisive actions, and in five-plus years, this administration is an embarrassment with respect to leadership, transparency and good government. >> let's try to get kind of out of politics. ebony, we have robert gates, respected by democrats and republicans, saying that hillary clinton is deciding what her, you know, her -- where she should be on a surge in iraq based upon where she is in the polls. do you think that will affect her in 2016? >> i think that the former secretary of state is going to have to be much more disclosive about benghazi and her positions in iraq. absolutely, she'll have to answer those questions, and the american people are to be

considered for the top of the ticket. >> all right. >> one quick thing -- >> real naft. >> the point is if this goes to her the commander in chief task, she will put politics -- >> well, there will be a problem with the military anyway. thank you so much, guys. coming up, what you need to know about the danger no one is talking about. could the u.s. power grid fall to terrorists, and don't forget to vote in tonight's instapoll. what are the odds of an obama employee making anyone at the irs accountable? facebook or tweet me at fighting constipation by eating healthier, drinking plenty of water, but still not getting relief? try dulcolax laxative tablets. dulcolax is comfort-coated for gentle, over-night relief. dulcolax. predictable over-night relief you can count on.

we got an enormous response to the segment that we did on the vulnerability of our american power grid. tonight, the former energy secretary under president bill clinton, governor bill richardson, joins me. governor, good evening. thanks for being with us. >> thank you, judge. and congratulations on dealing with this very important issue. >> well, thank you. and, governor, you know, you have referred to the u.s. power grid -- i mean, you're the former secretary of energy, so you know a lot about this -- as resembling a third world grid. why do you say that? >> well, because it's not modernized, judge. it's balkanized. we're talking about 9,000 separate power generating

plants. we're talking about 300,000 miles of transmission lines. and we've got an issue, the electric power grid, that affects lighting up and electric power to the households or businesses, and we haven't modernized it. we haven't invested in distributed generation. i mean, what's happening, for instance, in indiana, in illinois, the tremendous growth of solar and wind power and their ability to transmit that through transmission lines to eastern neighbors. california, new york. we don't have the capacity. and if our capacity increases by 3% -- in other words, our load capacity -- we can't handle that, and that's going to affect the economy, jobs, our manufacturing base. so it's a huge issue. >> you know, governor, a lot of people say this is kind of sci-fi stuff, but why don't you talk just for a moment about the impact of the grid, whether it's the -- you know, electromagnetic

pulse that people talk about. if the grid goes down, it's not just a question of it being dark, but people's lives are on the line. >> well, people's lives are on the line. you're talking about our manufacturing base. you're talking about households. you're talking about businesses. you're talking about the ability to send transmission, especially since we're emphasizing renewable energy, but it affects nuclear power, it affects oil and gas, it affects our ability to not just for daily comfort, but also our ability to grow our economy and create our jobs. and then, there's a danger of cyberwar fare, of the penetration of our electric grid by foreign powers that are hostile to us. and this is threat that we really have to invest in. and it's not -- i'm not trying to scare us about china or north

korea. but i think we need to have real discussions about protecting our grid from this new technology that is huge in terms of its ability to penetrate what is most probably important for the american economy, and that's our power grid. >> the power grid cyberwar fare, and the ability to impact it, i worry about a nuclear device that could go up to a solar flare, and then shut everything down. so if you're in a hospital, you know, or if you need some kind of dialysis, if you're driving and the red lights are out, i mean, just the short term, forget about the long-term economy. but who is in charge? if you call it the balkanization of the power grid system, that means there's a lot of little companies. who oversees them, who monitors them? >> well, i think this has to be a -- it's not just an energy issue. it's a national defense issue. it's a jobs issue. so what needs to happen is some kind of cabinet czar, or a czar

that is going to handle these issues, that is not going to have to put up with some of the difficulties in the bureaucracy, but we still need to invest more in what is called distributed generation, in what is called a smart grid, new technology for the grid. so that, for instance, we can handle extra capacity. and we're not doing it as fast as we should. and it's not just the government. it's just the american people. and i think the fact that you're raising this issue, which, in many cases, you're right, everyone starts snoring, it's really important. and i commend you for raising this. >> thank you, governor. and we're going to have you on again, because i like this issue. and i think maybe we might be able to make a difference. governor richardson, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you, judge. thank you for having me. >> all right. coming up, they told us more people would be covered under obamacare. me thinks they might have lied again.

and this is your last chance to vote in our instapoll. what are the odds of an of obama making anyone at the irs accountable?

if you have health coverage and like it, don't get too comfortable. the likelihood is you will still lose it if obamacare has its way. betsy, we know people have already lost their coverage. the white house says it's just a few of us, and that more people are going to be covered with obamacare. is that true? >> the crisis is about to occur this year. most americans get their coverage at work. through their own employer or spouse's mother. this year as though plans expire, employers will be required, if they provide

coverage, to provide the washington knows best ten essential benefits which cost a lot more than what most employers are accustomed to providing. so if -- >> obamacare is requiring employers to get people more, which we already know, and then can employers opt out -- >> yes. there's no employer mandate right now. so employers are going to say, can't afford this go to the exchange instead. and the key here is that on the job coverage is a much better deal than obamacare. obamacare is a raw deal compared with what most employees are getting at work. >> if i am -- >> let me give you an example. typical employee pays less than a thousand dollars towards the plan, it's -- they're paying with pretax dollars, have other deductible on average of $1,135, and for that they have a broad access to coverage.

for example, wal-mart employee has the entire blue cross blue shield national network, and mayo clinic -- >> let's talk about wal-mart. i understand the wal-mart health plan is cheaper and offers more coverage than obamacare. >> an individual working for wal-mart pays $18 a month and has the entire blue cross blue shield national network plows access to the mayo clinic and the cleveland clinic. this is exactly the kind of access you need when you're -- which is why i'm saying to family if you have someone in the family whose seriously ill, stay away from the obamacare exchange plans because if you're really sick, often only the academic hospitals know how to cure you. >> they are -- they are not involved in this -- >> not at all. obamacare plans exclude most of those top tier hospital. >> when this starts to filter down, and as many as 60 million people will lose their coverage.

>> if you get your coverage through your employer, first of all, find out, is your employer self-insuring or boying in the small group market. it's the people who are getting insured in the small group market who are at risk. their employers have to provide the ten essential benefits. so, if you happen to get that kind of plan, you should be going to your human resources department or asking your boss, are you going to drop my coverage this year? i am estimating that 20 to 30 million americans are going to lose their on the job coverage this year. >> and they say people are estimating even more. that more people will lose their coverage. >> that's right. >> the news of the day today, cgi, the company employed to set up the web site, is gone. >> good riddance. what is amazing is that the administration doesn't want to admit they fired cgi. wouldn't it be wonderful is i they finely took that step. >> gene to make any difference or is that money wasted we could

have given people health care with. >> exactly. the real key is here despite all the web site malfunctions, the big problem is this is a lousy product. if you have to go to the obamacare exchange, costs more, lousy coverage. >> want you to know dr. mccoy always walks around with this -- weighs 20-pounds. now it's time for the result of tonight's instapoll. we asked, what do you think the odds are of the obama employee investigating the targeting scandal that makes anyone at the irs accountable. about 99.9% of you say the odds are zero. rick says, somewhere between slim and none, and slim is on a fast horse out of d.c. lorraine tweets, i have a better chance of getting struck by lightning today. and paul sumps up best about the

same odds as hitting the lottery're being your lover. being your love center my lover? [ male announcer ] this is joe woods' first day of work. and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to cf before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade

tonight on huckabee. republicans attacking members of their own party. >> don't focus on the people in office. focus on those you would like to replace. and then the war in iraq is over. and al-qaeda flags are fly nothing fallujah and soldiers that lost brothers in iraq and tell us how they felt to see the iraqi cities back in the hands of the extremist. >> plus if good guys have guns, the bad guys will stay away. detroit police chief james craig tonight. ♪