york. good night and god bless. now stay tuned for "justice with judge janine." 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.

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. >> cruz right? should we take the irs at their word, that all those e-mails just magically disappeared? or is there more to this than 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 do the right 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.

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 american

eastern ukraine. 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 and 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.

♪imagine no possessions ♪i wonder if you can ♪no need for greed or hunger

♪a brotherhood of man ♪imagine all the people ♪sharing all the world ♪you ♪you may say i'm a dreamer ♪but i'm not the only one ♪i hope someday you'll join us ♪and the world will live as one♪ this is a fox news alert. benghazi suspect ahmed abu khattala has arrived in the united states and pled not guilty in federal court today. questions continue to be raised over the decision not to send

him to military court. now, will the obama administration coddle the murder of four americans? joining us is mike baker. so, mike, why did they wait so long to get this guy? this is the question that people keep asking. he was talking to reporters. he was sitting out in the open. were they trying to get information from him? did they not have enough evidence to try to -- please give me a good excuse for this. >> and you're right, there's been a lot of heat, in a very quick period of time, since picking him up. first there was the news, okay, we picked him up, and almost immediately, people were saying, but, yeah, we waited all this time. it's not fair to speculate, because we don't know the detail as to why, the operational reasons, and often times there are very solid operational reasons not to move immediately on a target like this. and as you've always mentioned -- >> give me some of them. >> as you've already mentioned, what are you trying to do, you're trying to learn more about his associates, you're trying to have him or his associates that you then start to catalog, lead you to others, you're trying to widen the net

and have a full understanding. because right now, eastern libya is a huge mess. ever since we went in there, we haven't paid much attention since gadhafi's fall. we've been following benghazi, but haven't been following the chaos that is libya. there's a lot of work that potentially has been done during this period of time since the attacks and now iic picking up khattala. >> i get it, as a former gang prosecutor, we put up a gang board and you want to know who all the associates are, who are they talking to on tuesday, who should they meet with tuesday, so you can catch them all, cast a bigger net. hopefully that's what's happening here, because there's been a lot of hype about this guy being the mastermind, et cetera, but we do know that there are others that were very significantly involved that remain at large. so we want to get as much intel as possible. it's one thing to follow a guy around the block a few times, but we've been driving around, he's been on a boat, okay, for two weeks. is that enough time? because now we turn him over to civilian court, like he's a guy

who committed a robbery down the veto. >> this is part of the problem. it's not just putting him into the u.s. criminal justice system, which, yes, you can gather additional information through that process. it's much more difficult and layered than it used to be. and that's a bit of a self-inflicted wound. but what we've really done in terms of our ability to gather information is, this administration some time ago said, look, we're not going to use enhanced interrogation techniques. a lot of angst over that, a lot of people on the far left say it's torture -- >> what do you think? haven't been there? >> not to return to that horse and beat it dead again, but there are enhanced techniques that aren't torture. and sometimes it's not the ability to use them, but it's the ability to have them in your kit bag and create the unknown for these detainees. and that's what's an effective interrogation environment, them not knowing what's coming down the pike. what this administration has done is said, we will only use the army field manual. and i will guarantee -- >> everybody has a copy of that! >> everybody's got a copy of it. and i've said this before, i couldn't break my teenage

daughter with the army field manual. >> i'm sorry about that. >> there you go. but you know that all the al qaeda, you know, operational leaders, immediately dispersed or distributed these manuals to all their their minions. and so he gets on a boat. he spends two weeks on this boat and what have they been doing and what has the group been doing and talking to him? this guy is not stupid. he is not stupid. and he knows what can and can't be done. he knows he is headed to the u.s. he was on the boat two weeks pontiff kating and wasting time. >> he knows he is going to come to u.s. shores and get a great lawyer. it is going to be years before this case comes to fruition. what is so terrifying about that for a guy like this? >> there isn't anything terrifying to that. and the problem that we've got is i have a tremendous amount of respect and belief in the bureau

and the intel community and their ability to gather intel but we have a problem. it's a self inflicted wound. >> why north korea is

bulldog: ah, the dog days of summer! time to celebrate with your mates, grill a few dogs-- eh, hot dogs. bacon burgers... dachshund: "mattress discounters 4th of july sale ends soon"? bulldog: that cloud reminds me of... radio announcer: the tempur-pedic cloud collection. bulldog: that's it! radio announcer: now with 48 months interest-free financing-- basset hound: free financing? radio announcer: or get a queen size serta pillow top on sale for just $597. bulldog: that's a ringer of a deal! radio announcer: mattress discounters 4th of july sale ends soon. ♪ mattress discounters

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 bandar

you for watching and so you back here on the same time, same channel. huckabee starts now. tonight on huckabee. >> plose let me go home. n16 months after she was taken from her parents, the night mayor is over. she is back home and joins the governor in a huckabee exclusive. and the lost irs e-mails. >> the president continues to blow off the scandal, the republicans are demanding accountability. snrngs we have a text message that he is on the way home from school and waking up he is not there. namerican citizen kidnapped in the west bank with two friends. the governor's interview with