...and we'll replace destroyed or stolen items with brand-new versions. we put members first. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ tonight, breaking news. the benghazi terror suspect, ahmed abu khattala, the libyan militant charged in the 2012 benghazi attack, finally arrives in the u.s. and pleads not guilty before a federal judge. khattala is charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism resulting in death. the crime carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. hello and welcome to "justice." i'm kimberlyguilfoyle in for judge jeanine. so ambassador, what's your take? do you think this is the right decision to send him to criminal court instead of military.

>> i think it was a big mistake and i think it represents a fundamental philosophical divide in how we treat the terrorist attacks on the united states. the obama administration really has reverted to the pre-9/11 mode of looking at terrorist attacks as a law enforcement matter, sort of like knocking over the local starbucks, only maybe a little worse. so they view this as a way to prosecute khattala and the others they pick up in a regular criminal trial with full due process protection. i think that's fundamentally wrong. i think the war against terrorism, the war they've waged against us, should be treated under the law of war. and i think in this case, the bush administration had it right when it opened gitmo to put illegal enemy combatants like khattala in that facility and treat them as they deserved to be. i would, myself, wouldn't be much concerned about trying them in a military tribunal. i think they're prisoners of war, for as long as the war

lasts, which could be a long time, and subjects of interrogation for intelligence purposes, which under the obama theory, we've only had two weeks for this particular defendant, not nearly enough time. >> yeah, because what if they weren't able to get the right source of intelligence, material out of them during that short interim. it's not very long at all. why are we going out of our way as a country to afford an individual like this, an enemy combatant, a terrorist, the same rights and privileges as u.s. citizens bringing him here. it makes no sense to me. i do think it sends the wrong message internationally and to those who do us harm. i want to talk to you about next steps for the accused benghazi ring leader. what can we expect? >> well, i think it's going to go through the normal criminal process here. he's already had a court-appointed attorney. he's been read his miranda rights. and the only question now is whether he clams up and basically tries to find technicalities to extricate himself from his current situation or, which i think is more likely, he turns this trial

into a propaganda exercise. you know, this is hardly the sort of prosecution that fits into a traditional criminal justice mode. and i think it underlines the point you just made, that this is fundamentally the wrong way to look at this. and it's not just this one trial, where the circumstances of his only being interrogated for two weeks, it's the entire obama administration mind-set. it's an ideological fixation that the war on terror is over, that we don't want to talk about islamic radicalism, for fear of offending parts of the world where the radicals come from. and i think it's a blindness that the united states is going to suffer from. we see al qaeda and other terrorist groups like isis in syria and iraq growing in influence now. and yet, we are pursuing our legitimate interests through the failed mechanisms of law enforcement, as if it were the 1990s, as if 9/11 had never happened. >> and i think we can't afford to roll back like this.

this is not the right approach. it's been a fundamental failure across the board, a fail by this administration, and i really think that the incompetence, when it comes to national security and dealing with those enemies that want to do us harm has really just been, just an abysmal failure on the part of this administration, and now look at where we're suffering the repercussions of it. let's talk about the politics of this and the optics. do you think the timing of khattala's capture would have been premeditated. this is a guy that was out in the open and we wait this long to get him. what's going on here? >> i don't think there's any good explanation for it. i don't think you can cut the timing down to a matter of days, but there had to be some reason why we couldn't get him over a year ago. if journalists could talk to him, there's no reason why american special forces couldn't have picked him up. and i think the only explanation we have, at least for some period of that time, is that obama didn't want to acknowledge

how serious the terrorist threat was in libya, a place where he had exercised his famous leadership from behind, and saw the state that replaced gadhafi basically collapse around him. i think there's a lot congress needs to move into here. >> i want to get your take on this. the supreme court's blow this week to president obama's recessed appointment power. as you recall, president bush made your nomination official by recess appointment. what's the difference here, ambassador? >> the difference here is that obama vastly overreached in his assertion of the recess appointment power. congress and the senate had gone into pro-forma session going back, once every three days, and obama basically said, well, they're not really holding sessions. they're in a much longer recess than once every three days. i'm going to disregard the senate's own statement about its own rules and give three nlrb commissioners recess appointments. i think the court reached the

right result that was clearly overreaching, but it hides a much more fundamental problem here, which i think is the obama administration's overreaching on a whole variety of areaing, not just on recess appointments. >> yeah, i think you're right about that. and this is another blow to the president and his ability in trying to just overreach on a number of different issues. we're seeing it here as well. ambassador bolton, thanks so much. >> thank you. glad to be with you. >> well, the president had a tough week. in addition to the supreme court ruling striking down his appointment power, mr. obama faced another challenge when house speaker john boehner challenged a lawsuit over his executive actions. >> what we've seen, clearly over the last five years, is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch. standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the congress. >> so, will anything come out of this lawsuit? that's the question. and with me, florida congressman, ron desanta. congressman, do you support

boehner's lawsuit? >> well, good evening. look, i think that clearly, the president has overstepped his bounds. he's usurped our powers, he rewrites laws. but i've got to tell you, i'm skeptical that the courts are somehow going to save us. i remember a few years ago when people said, don't worry about obamacare, the supreme court will save us from that. and it turns out they didn't do it. john roberts was a tax. and at the end of the day, we need to stand up for our own institutional spress, using the powers we have, the power to deny funding with, and the power to check the president. and i think courts are probably going to be a little leery of getting involved and refereeing disputes between the political branchs. so i appreciate what the speaker is doing, because i think it's motivated by a legitimate distrust of what the president's done, but i'm not betting a lot of money that this is going to be successful at this juncture. >> all right. now, some are speculating that this lawsuit could be the first step towards impeachment. what are your thoughts? >> well, it's interesting, if

you read the constitution, we have the authority to impeach all civil officers of the united states. and so if you have corrupt officials at, say, the irs, or some of these other agencies, there's nothing preventing us from going after those individuals who are a step below the president or even a cabinet officer. and i think we need to looking at that, because that removes these corrupt people who are impeding our investigations from power and allows us to have a better opportunity to get to the truth of some of these things. >> well, congressman, i want to talk a moment about your bill, faithful execution of the law. now, if this is passed, how will federal law be amended? >> well, basically, the president has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce. they've been doing the stealth delays, so when we passed that in the house a couple months ago, we set out a minimum. if the president is going to not enforce laws, he needs to come to the congress, state the reason why, and that gives us the ability to respond and check him. we can try to defend funding if

he's denying executive orders that we don't think are consistent with the law, or we could pass additional laws to try to counteract that. and as of right now, sometimes we'll figure out from the press that they're not enforcing laws. and that's just not the way the system is supposed to operate. >> not at all. and the american people deserve better than that, that's for sure. i want to move on to the irs. this is a story that's really been picking up steam. the missing learner e-mail. is it time for a special prosecutor? >> well, i think, clearly, it's warranted here. because we have the appearance of criminal conduct, when you have e-mails being deleted, the american people are not buying this idea that those just happen to be deleted. the problem, though, that we run into, is who would appoint the special prosecutor? eric holder. so i don't think eric holder is probably going to appoint somebody who's going to do a good job. so that's why when you mentioned, you know, we can go after some of these irs officials directly, using our impeachment powers and maybe that's a way that we can start rattling some cages over in the

executive branch. >> yeah, because you have more faith in that, i guess, way of going about it, that path, than trying to rely on eric holder and the justice department, who has failed, quite consistently, in the past, to make those kind of decisions. >> well, and, too, when you're talking about abusing your duties of high office, those can be violations of criminal law, but they're not always violations of criminal law, especially when you're obstructing congressional investigation. but i think they would be inconsistent with holding a high office. and so, going the criminal route, it takes longer. you've got to satisfy certain statutes. going to political route, it's more of a constitutional check on some corrupt officials. >> all right. well-stated. congressman desantis, thanks for being with us tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> coming up, much more on the irs scandal and the challenges to the president's power and the latest out of the middle east. and vote in tonight's instapoll. if you believe the irs just lost those lois lerner e-mails, tweet

me. we'll read your answers later in the show. instead of mailing everyone my vacation photos, i'm saving a ton of time by posting them to my wall. oh, i like that one. it's so quick! it's just like my car insurance. i saved 15% in just 15 minutes. i saved more than that in half the time. i unfriend you. that's not how it works. that's not how any of this works. [ male announcer ] 15 minutes for auote isn't how it works anymore. with esurance, 7 1/2 minutes could save you on car insurance. welcome to the modern world. esurance. backed by allstate. click or call.

we are supposed to believe that the e-mails the from the irs officials in charge of the division that illegally targeted political organizations and has repeatedly pleaded the fifth to avoid incriminating herself, that her e-mails have simply vanished. inknockously, just erased. it happens, you know, it happens that the people in the middle of illegal acts, their records magically disappear right when the investigators are seeking to discover them. >> so is senator cruz right? should we take the irs at their word, that all those e-mails just magically disappeared? or is there more to this tha meets the eye? with me, director of investigations for judicial law, chris farrell, and fiber security expert and former nsa

analyst, david kennedy. gentleman, thanks for being with me tonight. gentleman, i'll begin with you. we always hear about the remote storage service, right, the cloud? everybody has it. so are we supposed to believe that the irs are the only kids on the block that didn't? >> what's intriguing about the irs is that they're a 90,000-people organization, with an over $2 billion budget. so when you have that type of i.t. infrastructure, you have the ability to back things up in a way that you just don't lose it by crashing your e-mail -- or crashing your laptop. so in this case, it seems somewhat unlikely, because they have multiple areas that could fail at the same time and still recover the data. >> all right, well, now, irs says that the lost e-mails are the result of a crashed hard drive. is this really believable, because it should be the backup, like you say. >> well, they even had a third party company doing the backups shortly after this specific crash. so they were actually engaging in a third party organization to perform backups of their information, to ensure that they had it. what happened to those backups? no one's actually been able to answer that question, as of yet. and it should not happen in this

time of day in technology. we're designed to be able to keep things backed up and be able to store them very easily. >> so this is my favorite excuse of the week, the "dead broke," right, excuse? the irs commissioner blamed the budget cuts. you said that's absurd, right? because their budget should cover the process to be able to save these e-mails, be able to retrieve them forensically or otherwise, especially in a situation like this. >> yeah, i completely agree with that. i think that, you know, if you look at how an organization has a $2 billion budget, that is unheard of in the private sector. i mean, absolutely unheard of. and so they have plenty of money to be able to spend on the backup portion, and it's not that expensive. i mean, to back up a $90,000 personal organization for multiple years isn't a huge impact to the overall budget itself. it's really surprising to me. >> i know. and then the good old nsa, you think they would be able to figure this out for us too. chris, i'll move on to you. a federal court hearing was granted. what does this mean for the investigation? >> well, the irs and the department of justice have a

real problem, because they have materially failed to inform the court in our litigation that they can't find these e-mails, and have been suspiciously silent. so while all these disclosures have been made to congress, we've been involved in litigation for months now, and in fact, the revelations that have come about are because of our litigation to force the irs to produce records. so the lois lerner contact with the s.e.c., with the department of justice, all of those came about because of our litigation. what's curious is, they never mentioned a word, not a peep, to us or to the court about these supposedly lost e-mails. so, we forced them into court. they need to appear on july 10th and explain to judge emt sullivan, why they have misled the court and ourselves. >> but here's the problem. why do you have to take these steps for them to doht thing? and what are they going to say to the judge? the dog ate my homework, the dog ate the hard drive and we didn't pay our bills.

we were too dead broke and couldn't afford to get the backups. this to me just flies in the face of common sense, that anybody would buy this nonsense. >> well, the real problem with the irs in this case is, they did a communication with the court, and they have never told the court about these missing or lost e-mails. so they've made what appear to be false and misleading statements to the court about the records themselves and how they're producing them to us. they've painted themselves into a corner. they are in real trouble. >> what about this assertion, i mean, is it possible to deliberately crash a hard drive? can you detect this act, if someone tried to do this, like an overt act? >> you can. there's a technique called forensic analysis, which allows us to take a look at the hard drive and see if it was intentionally crashed or not. the problem in this case, they recycled the hard drive afterwards, so we don't even have the direct evidence that we would be able to perform that analysis on. >> but isn't that a little suspicious? i have an investigation going

on, oh, now you've recycled it. now you've gone environmental on me, which is really convenient, especially since they could be facing criminal charges here if there's wrong doing. >> absolutely. and if you look at lois lerner's e-mails dating a few weeks after the crash, she didn't ask for the recovery of her e-mails. there was no mention of her e-mails whatsoever with any of the communications with our i.t. department or something like that. something isn't right here and we should be questioning our government on this one. >> it's fishy, that's for sure. chris, i want to ask you a quick question. they're going to give congress a report about this damaged hard drive within a few weeks, but can we trust any report that they've put forward? >> no, you can't. they're completely compromised. there's no ability to believe either the irs or the dodge attorneys that's wrapped up in this case. they've lost all credibility. it really calls for a special council to be appointed. >> i think that's what it's going to come to at this point, in order to get the answers.

because they are not being compliant with turning overed the evidence and the american people deserve better than that. chris, david, thank you so much. >> thank you. coming up, despite all the evidence to the contrary, why is the president sticking with the phony scandal narrative? stick around. [ music and whistling ] when you go the extra mile to help business owners save on commercial auto insurance, you tend to draw a following.

[ brakes screech ] flo: unh... [ tires squeal, brakes screech, horn honks ] ooh, ooh! [ back-up beeping, honking ] a truckload of discounts for your business -- now, that's progressive.

this week, house speaker john boehner announced plans for a lawsuit against president obama over what he calls abuse of executive power. the democrats were quick to respond. take a look. >> i believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country and on behalf of the institution and our constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the

congress. >> my make of it is subterfuge. they're doing nothing here, so they have to give some aura of activity, that really needs to be an adult in that room, of the republican caucus. >> how serious should the white house take the power abuse accusations? joining us now, republican strategist, ryan derdusky, and steve laser. thanks for being with me tonight. steve, is that the case? >> i don't think. if you look at the judicial measurements of whether a president is using his executive authority, things like executive orders and signing statements, he's used the fewest executive orders of any two-term president, on track to, since grover cleveland. 1897. i'm not sure where republicans are getting this idea that he's misusing his executive authority. >> all right, you see it? >> he has a right to do as many executive orders as he wants, but it's what he's doing executive order on. he doesn't have the right to do an executive order in the attempt to frustrate a law so

much so that it oversteps congress. when obamacare, the rollout happened, and it happened so badly, he told insurance agents that you could go out and get premiums from last year and deals from last year, in an attempt to overstate his own law. so this is a perpetual problem of an unlawful president, to commit executive orders in order to overstep congress. >> so you don't take issue with the fact that he's issuing an executive order, but with respect to the areas in which he's doing it. that's an overreach? >> absolutely. or the directive to dhs, to allow illegal aliens under 30 to give them a way so they can go around getting deported. his absolutely overstepping his bounds and telling insurances you can go against the law, he's telling illegal immigrants, you can go against the law, and breaking up the laws that the congress is setting for him. >> kim, you want to talk about what the president is actually doing in terms of using his authority, let's look at george w. bush. i didn't hear republicans saying anything during that. listen, wiretapping, right?

torture, extraordinary rendition. >> well, torture, there was one case of waterboarding. okay. >> mitt romney, republicans' nominee for president in 2012 said, okay, one of the first things he would do was issue an executive order to repeal obamacare. republicans applauded every time he said that. i didn't hear anything about that. so for republicans to go back and say, oh, we're concerned about abuse of executive authority. >> are you saying you have no problem with what bush did and you have no problem with what obama did? or just bush? >> no, as a matter of fact, i welcome the idea of discussing what the limits of executive authority should be. i just think that coming from the folks that it's coming from, regarding the things that it's coming from, is a little bit ridiculous. >> so you're willing to debate on the limits of executive order, just not under this president? maybe the next republican president can have this conversation, but right now -- >> discuss limits later on. >> when a republican -- >> maybe in 2016. >> but this law is absolutely ridiculous. the idea that all of a sudden, it's bad for republicans, i think that's ridiculous. >> president obama has been respecting the rule of law like president clinton respected it

in terms of blue dresses. it is not -- >> you went there. >> it has to be dealt with here and now. >> we'll leave it on that, that was pretty good. let's move on to the irs. ryan, can the american people trust the irs if they can't even be accountable to the e-mails? what's going on? >> seven employees are under investigation. seven hard drives crashed. zero are backed up. the commissioner of the irs is a democratic donor who gave $80,000 to democratic campaigns, including five of them to president obama. he doesn't contact the department of justice, doesn't contact the congress or the fbi. >> all right. those are serious problems. i'm going to let steve respond, but take a look at what the president said this week. >> sometimes the news that's coming off, it just -- these are just washington fights. they're fabricated issues, they're phony scandals that are generated. it's all beer torts, the next election, or ginning up a base.

it's not on the level. >> all right, so what do you think? is he right? >> i think he's absolutely right. >> how did i know you were going to say that? >> besides my political career, i have seen so many instances like this in the private sector, where folks who didn't do the right things regarding backups happens. now, i admit this looks bad. and i would support -- i saw some of your other guests earlier saying, i would support the idea of a special prosecutor. but i'm going to tell you what they're going to find. they're going to find absolutely nothing wrong happened here. and i'll tell you why i know that. when you see situations like this, when they're investigated forensically, what uh yo see when there's been wrongdoing is they somehow subverted the policies and they have not done that in this case. >> and you disagree? >> i think we should have an independent prosecutor, sure. >> it seems like it would be warranted in this situation. let's see what happens. i don't have a ton of faith in eric holder in doing the right thing here. i want to say thank you for both

of you joining me tonight. thank you so much. coming up, more on today's breaking news. benghazi suspect khattala now on people like options. when you take geico, you can call them anytime you feel like saving money. it don't matter, day or night. use your computer, your smartphone, your tablet, whatever. the point is, you have options. oh, how convenient. hey. crab cakes, what are you looking at? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. ♪ they lived ♪ they lived. ♪ they lived. ♪ (dad) we lived...

thanks to our subaru. ♪ (announcer) love. it's what mas a subaru, a subaru.

live from america's news headquarters i'm laura ingalls. fierce fighting in the northern iraqi city of tikrit. residents say isis was still in

control at night fall. government officials say their troops are at the city outskirts. two security officials implied more jets are on the way. fire crews hoping lighter winds will help them get control of a san juan fire in eastern arizona winds pushed the flames east and now, they're forcing people to evacuate their homes and rush to emergency shelter. so far no injuries have been reported. now back to justice with judge jeanine. i'm laura i thingle. now back to "justice with judge jeanine." >> the first thing to do is recognize we have a problem, and not just in iraq. the scope of the problem is the willingness of the president to realize we have a problem. they're still living back in the

day when they claim, we got bin laden, terrorism problem solved. that wasn't true then and it's even less true today. >> so is the former vice president right? has the obama administration's foreign policy done more harm than good? our next guest says that president obama is to blame for breaking the middle east. eliot abrams is a senior fellow for middle eastern studies at the council for foreign relations in washington, d.c. he wrote an incredible article. i know my colleague and i really enjoyed it. she says hi, by the way. so i want to ask you about this. this is provocative. everybody was talking about it this week. tell the american people, what has the obama administration done to fuel the turmoil in the middle east? >> you know, in 2009, none of what the chaos we're now seeing was taking place. the chaos of 12,000 jihadis, running amok in syria and iraq, threatening israel, jordan, the oil supplies in the gulf. none of that was happening. this is the product of five years of obama policy, that has

turned the middle east back to real chaos, and endangered us. because those jihadis, at the end of the road, they want to come for us. >> so it seems, and a lot of people feel the way you do, that this administration's foreign policy has damaged the world's view of the united states. how they see us, and perhaps whether they're worried or feel any sense of even respect for us. >> that's absolutely right. and you talk to both the middle east, arabs and israelis, their main worry, in a sense, is us. is the united states willing to use its power, the respect for the united states is down. the feeling on the part of allies is they can rely on us, and of enemies, that they need to be afraid of us, is just way down. and that's the product of five years of really mistaken foreign policy. >> a lot of people have iran on their mind. how much of a threat are they to the united states at this point? >> well, i don't think they want to take us on directly, but i do think they want a nuclear weapon. because their goal is really to be the power in the middle east. that's a threat to all of our

allies. the oil supplies allies like jordan and israel, because the iranians have been gaining gaining. their influence in the middle east is much greater now than it was five years ago. they're viewed as the rising power there, and we're viewed as the declining power. >> okay. now, in terms of his leadership style or lack of leadership, it seems like there's just a vacuum there. this is somebody who's supposed to be the commander in chief, supposed to be making decisions in the best interests of our national security going forward, and not being kind of a political wind checker. how do you see it? >> two big mistakes. the first is he really doesn't talk to people. when i talk to leaders out there, they've had very little contact with the president. he just doesn't reach out to them. but the larger problem is, he's passive. i mean, look at syria. it's been going straight downhill for years. even his own cabinet, hillary clinton, leon panetta, when he was secretary of defense, were saying, do something about syria. let's back the non-jihadi,

national syrian rebels. two years they've been saying that. the president has done nothing. so that passivity, has let our enemies grow and grow in power. >> all right. real quick now, what can we do, what do you suggest that the united states do to fix our foreign policy problem? >> the first thing we need to do, i think, is really iraq, syria, is one theater, get behind those rebels in syria who are in a fight. these isis jihadis. get behind them now, and in a serious way. but as i said in the article, there's a lot of arabs and israelis who think -- a lot of americans who think, you're really not going to fix this until january 20th, 2017. >> and the problem is, that's going to be too late, because we see the situation crumbling on a daily basis, in just rapid succession. eliot, thank you for being with us here tonight. >> my pleasure. >> well, joining me, fox news contributor and fellow with the prague freedom foundation,

richard prenl. great having you here. thanks for spending saturday night with me. how has obama's plan for the middle east failed? >> i think eliot hit on it, we just don't have any leadership now. so there's a lot of talk about what we should do militarily, but i really have been focused on what we should do diplomatically. we don't even have a diplomatic strategy. certainly, we have arab allies in the region that want to see a plan. they would like the united states to come forward. we used to be, many years ago, worried about state-sponsored terrorism, right now we're worried about a terrorist-sponsored state. we literally could have a region where the terrorists own it called al qaedastan, in the first place. it is really getting to the point where we can't just ignore what's going on. our number one strategic reason for looking at the middle east right now has got to be to stop iran. >> that to be the top priority. >> absolutely. i think that's our number one priority for everyone involved. and we do have allies there. you know who doesn't want iran

to get very far? it's turkey and saudi arabia. we have arab allies. this isn't just about bombing. >> does this mean that we're putting them in? it's like, hey, put me in, coach, and we're not doing it. there seems to be an overall lack of structure and focus, as to exactly what our foreign policy purpose should be. >> we don't have a strategy. and you know, i spent so many years at the u.n., and i sit behind those desks, where it says the united states, and when you have a room full of people who come in from all different countries, every single eye is looking at the placard that says, united states. they're waiting for a plan. and we don't have a plan. we have a lot of parties, up at the u.n., but we don't have a plan. >> it seems to me, and many critics have said that president obama's actions or inaction, rather, lack of leadership, has made iran more powerful. >> yeah, because i think when there's a vacuum, iran is taken over. when you go back -- i know this is a little bit crazy, but in

2005, iran and the syrians were in lebanon. we pushed them out of lebanon. we had the iranians, the syrians, and many of the bad guys on the run. we really were pushing them. they went out of lebanon, and they were held to, basically, syria and iran. now what you have is lebanon has collapsed, syria has collapsed, and now all of the work that we had in iraq has collapsed. so, it's clear that when there is no united states leadership, that others will jump in to fill the vacuum. and i think you're seeing that with iran. >> and on another side note, you see russia being kbloeemboldene. nobody is worried about repercussions, no one thinks the united states is going to act in my meaningful way to put a stop thou to this. and it doesn't seem like our allies feel like we're going to do anything, we're not doing much to support them, we sit back and having meetings about

equivocation and the inability to make strong decisions. >> our friends and allies, even our enemies, are looking at this world and thinking, you know what, it was a lot better when the united states had a plan, even if we didn't agree with it. >> you're right about that. they knew there would be some decisions, there would be some authority, some steps taken, you know, assertiveness. and now it just seems very soft. >> they would work a little bit to go around our strategy, but right now, they're completely coming up with their own strategy. >> it's very disturbing. while i have you here, we're going to get most of our medicine here on justice. i want to talk to you about khattala, big events happening here today. the administration making a lot of this, saying this is the mastermind, although the evidence doesn't necessarily support that, certainly involves, you know, certainly important. but this is a guy sitting out, like you and i talking right here, reporters talking to us, we didn't pick him up, had plenty of opportunities for smash and grab, now they're saying they brought the mastermind down. >> kirkpatrick from "the new york times" is the guy who is

claiming that he had a reporter there the night in benghazi. he's claiming that his sources were talking to this guy. i think there's a lot more to come out. what, exactly happened, and why was "the new york times" there. why did they get pictures that seemingly are not at the right time? i think there's a lot of questions about that. and why were they allowed to interview this guy is and then for 2 1/2 years, really, no one was able to talk to him, and suddenly, we got him. i hope, kimberly, i hope the answer is, our intelligence agencies were watching him and getting a whole lot of information before they grabbed him. i'm not so sure that we have a strategy right now that could confirm that. >> i'm not so sure they do have a strategy. i don't think they they knew what to do. but they kept him on a boat and gave him a nice tour for two weeks. not sure what they got out of it. but sure hope you're right. but they were watching him, and who his contacts and associates were, but there is more good to come. we like to be an optimist here. richard, thank you so much. >> anytime.

>> appreciate it. >> coming up, the latest on benghazi suspect khattala, and what the u.s. is doing to apprehend the rest of those responsible for the benghazi attacks. i'm randy and i quit smoking with chantix. as a police officer, i've helped many people in the last 23 years. but i needed help in quitting smoking. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced the urge for me to smoke. it actually caught me by surprise. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some could be test.

first it was news we could have picked him up, then people started saying yes. but we waited all this time. it's not fair to speculate. we don't know details as to why. often times there are solid operational reasons not to move immediately on a target like this. >> give me some of them. >> what are you trying to do? learn more about his associates, have him, his associates lead to you others you're trying to widen the net and have a full understanding. right now, eastern libya is a

mess. >> right. >> ever since we went in there. we haven't paid much attention since the fall and we talked about benghazi but haven't been following the chaos that is libya. there is a lot of work potentially done since attacks and now, picking up katalla. >> people want to make sure we're getting all of the information we can. former gang prosecutor. you want to know who associates are. who are they talking to tuesday, who they meet with so they can cast a bigger net, hopefully, that is what's happening here, this has been a lot of hype about this guy. we know there are others that were involved remain at large. so we want to get as much intel as possible. one thing to follow a guy around the block. he's been on a boat. okay? for two weeks. is that enough time? now we turned him over to civilian court like a guy that

committed a robbery down the street. >> that is part of the problem, yes, you can gather additional information through that process it's more difficult in layers and that is a bit of a self inflicted wound. but what we've done is that this administration sometime ago said look. we're not going to use enhanced inter investigation. is the of angst on this. the reality of it is, there are enhanced techniques that aren't torture, sometimes it's not ability to use them, it's ability to create the unknown for these detainees. that is what effective in an interrogation environment. them not knowing what is coming down the pike. the administration said we'll only use army field manual. >> everybody has a copy of that. >> everybody has a copy of it . >> i said this before. i couldn't break any teenager

daughter with the army field manual. >> sorry about. that >> there you go. you know all al qaeda operational leaders distributed these manuals to their minions. he spends two weeks on this boat. we've been talking about what have they been doing? this guy is not stupid. he's not stupid he was on that boat two weeks wasting a lot of time. >> that is the problem, it's like the equivalent of the love boat he's on there. he knows he's going to get a great lawyer this, is going to be years down the fold we'll see this case come to fruition. what is so terrifying about that for a guy like this? >> i have a tremendous amount of

respect for the intel community. but we've got a problem. it's a self inflicted wound. >> why north korea is calling a soon to be released movie an act of war. seeing the world in reverse, and i loved every minute of it. but then you grow up and there's no going back. but it's okay, it's just a new kind of adventure. and really, who wants to look backwards when you can look forward? looks like we're about to board. mm-hmm. i'm just comparing car insurance rates at progressive.com. is that where they show the other guys' rates, too? mm-hmm. cool. yeah. hi. final boarding call for flight 294.

[ bells ring on sign ] [ vehicle beeping ] who's ready for the garlic festival? this guy! bringing our competitors' rates to you -- now, that's progressive.

that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet

and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. there's one critic who is giving the new seth rogen "the interview" two thumbs down. in the movie, the funnyman play newsmen recruited by the cia to pull off an assassination of the controversial leader. take a look at the trailer. ♪

>> want to go kill kim jong-un? >> totally. >> a kim spokesman called the film an act of war. but kim followed in the footsteps of his dad, who is featured in the comedy "team america". >> great to see you again. >> mr. il i was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today and your guards won't let me in. >> we have been through this a dozen times i don't have any weapons of mass destruction. >> i love it. like father like son, right? the north korean government has promise red tallation against the united states when the film hits theaters. the north koreans says that it is the work of gangster movie makers and is an act of terror.

seth rogen does not sound afraid. now it is time for the results of the insta poll. do you believe that the irs lost lois learner's e-mail. and freddy said sure they did. and tim tweeted of course not just lie until the problem goes away. don tweeting the only thing they have lost is respect from america. thanks for sending those in tonight. that's it for us tonight. thanks for joining us. coming up next "iraq and

tonight, al qaeda is back and taking over iraq. who are these militants? >> they live tweeted the beheading. they took credit for the crucifixion. >> what do they want? >> this is the islamic terrorists that bin laden was talking about more than a decade ago. >> this is exactly that forming before our eyes. >> should americans worry? >> there is a real danger of somebody using a nuclear weapon on the united states. >> the rise of a terrorist state. from washington here's chris wallace. >> good evening. with an offshoot of al qaeda threatening to take over iraq,s america finds itself being