hello and welcome to justice, i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for being with us. tonight is going to be a little different. with so much going on in the world i just have to do two opening statements. you won't warrant to miss my op on hillary clinton and those pesky e-mails later in the show, but first to iran. now, i want to congratulate president obama for the framework of this historic deal. on this weekend that holds such religious significance to so many of us around the world, i want to be chacharitable in my discussion. the effort to maintain peace in the middle east, hotbed of instability, with the world's major sponsor of terrorism is

extremely important. here's the president discussing the fundamental agreement on a framework for a nuclear deal. >> today the united states, together with our allies and partners, has reached historic understanding with iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon? now, it's holy week and i want to believe those words, but common sense tells you the decision to believe someone depends on prior experiences with them. translation, given benghazi and this despicable video and you can keep your health care plan and your doctor, and there's not a smidgen of corruption in the irs, and bloomberg doyle served with honor and distinction. do i need to keep going? but i want to believe the president. this is just too important.

not only for us but for our children and our grandchildren. there are two sides to every deal. how do we know if we can trust the other side? how do we know if we can trust iran? but i guess that i don't have to worry because our president has us covered. >> if iran cheats, the world will know it. if we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. >> here's the problem. the iranians tried to keep their underground fortress a secret from us and the rest of the world when they were building it. and assuming that inspectors can even find evidence of noncompliance, the resolution process would take so long, who knows what the iranians would accomplish in that time. and why are the common folk in iran jumping up and down? if it's such a great deal for them, why do i feel like it may not such a great deal for us? why do the optics look wrong?

why aren't we dancing in the streets celebrating? i do want to believe the president, but there are those who say this is simply a bad deal. >> let me put this in very direct terms. this framework leaves the iranian nuclear infrastructure intact. the same infrastructure that will allow iran in the future to develop atomic bombs to be used against its adversaries in the middle east. >> i want to to believe the president, but why are people in iran dancing in the streets? is this just a love story or are we sleeping with the enemy? now, we dive with iran in swiss palaces last week. in secret letters from our president to iran's leaders, we were jolted on sunday, but by

thursday we're reengaged. to me, this is like your close friends telling you the night before your wedding that you're making a big mistake, that they know it's a bad deal, that everyone might be happy now but down the road, the marriage will end on a sour note. the difference is, when this love story ends, our ex is going to have a nuclear bomb. and that's my open. tell me what you think on my facebook page or twitter . fox news contributor my friend john bolten joins me now. ambassador, is this relationship going to end badly? >> well, it's going to end badly for the united states and its friends. i'm afraid from iran's point of view this is about the best deal they could expect. of course they're happy. they're going to get the

economic sanctions lifted. they have made essentially trivial, easily reversible concessions on their nuclear weapons program, that leaves them on a path for nuclear weapons in a time of their choosing. >> excuse me. when you say that they've made concessions but they're easily reversible, when the president says, you know, we're going to be watching them, we're going to know what's going on, do you not buy that? >> no. you know, number one, we do not right now know everything about iran's nuclear weapons program. we know some things, but the notion that we know everything is fatally flawed. number two, the deal itself doesn't cover all aspects of the nuclear weapons program. it doesn't cover the weaponization aspects and it doesn't cover ballistic missiles. number three, you have to assume, as the president says, we will know immediately when iran violates the terms of the deal. and that's false, too, i'm afraid. >> well, what about the fact that last saturday night i was talking about the fact that, you know, iran said, no snap

inspections. then this saturday night we're like, they're like a vision of transparency. >> well, what they've agreed to is very little more than they've agreed to in the past 15 years that they've allowed the iaea into some facilities and then withheld their ability to inspect later. so it's a big concession to go back to where they were before. the fact is, on certain key aspects like the weaponization activities at the military base and some others they've just stiffed the iaea for four or five years now. and they repeatedly say to the international inspectors, we'll resolve this problem with you but, you know, they never do. so we're just -- this is like hearing the same record over and over again. >> you know, ambassador, i have a question that is more, you know, bigger scale. it seems that with this administration that the american -- our foreign policy has shifted. that we're making friends with our enemies and enemies of our friends like israel and not

providing egypt with the equipment that was promised to them. is this a major shift on the world stage, not just in terms of our being reduced on it, but who we are and who we stand with? >> well, i think the president believes we're part of the problem in the middle east and i think he believes that if he can convince, in this case, iran, that we have no hostile intent toward them that the iranian leadership will say, oh, that's great news, in that case we don't need nuclear weapons. i think this is completely backwards and certainly our friends in the region like israel and our arab friends think we've lost our minds. it's that simple. >> no hostile intent toward them. they're the ones who have hostile intent toward us. >> precisely. >> the optics are crazy. when you speak about israel, prime minister netanyahu is pleading, just make part of this deal the fact that they recognize that israel has a right to exist, a state department slaps them down on that one.

and while iran yells, chants dealt to americans and we're going to destroy israel, isn't that a danger zone, not just for israel but for us? >> well, i think it's a danger zone for us in many respects because what it means to israel, to the arab states in the region, is that the united states, the only country that can really do anything effective to stop iran has given up in that effort. and they're saying to themselves, we're going to look out for number one here. in israel's case it puts front and center the decision whether they're going to use military force to take out iran's program as israel has done twice before in its history. i think that's the next key decision. >> ambassador, what do we get out of this? >> i don't think we got anything, frankly. i mean, it's an embarrassment. this is probably the worse negotiation by top level americans in recent history. we have made concession after concession,n, that essentially legitimizes not only iran's

nuclear weapons program, it legitimizes the regime we still call a state sponsor of terrorism. >> very good point. it legitimizes them, that's for sure. am boos dobassador bolten, than being with us. with me now, lee zelden, a member of the house foreign affairs commission. already, congressman, what power does congress have to do anything about this deal? >> it needs to be stopped. >> how do you do that? >> a deal needs to be presented to congress for us to pass. with regards to sanctions that were passed by congress and signed into law the president can't just unilaterally get rid of those sanctions. we also need to shed more light to what the president is negotiating with iran. he's basically told the iranians, if you want to keep your centrifuge, keep your centrifuges. if you want to keep your nuclear facility, keep your nuclear facilities. he's obviously trying to cut a deal just to cut the deal, and the rest of us know a bad deal is worse than no deal at all.

>> do you even know what's in the deal? on june 30th apparently this thing is going to be established, everyone is going to sign it. will congress get a chance to even see this before june 30th? >> well, it's like the president is telling us and the american people that we're going to have to buy into the iranian deal in order to find out what's in it. the president released a facting sheet with his framework agreement a couple days ago. the iranians immediately refuted the contents of that fact sheet. the iranian foreign minister went on to twitter and said it was just spin. it's a very dangerous game the president is playing. >> what we have is two sides to a contract. we're spinning our side and saying this is a great deal and they're saying everything that we're saying is totally wrong. >> right. so which -- >> or is partly wrong, i don't know. >> which means you don't have an agreement at all. my constituents are pleading with the president, saying pretty please with nukes on top, come clean on what both sides are willing to publicly agree to. he's misleading -- the president is misleading the american public as to where we are currently with the nuclear negotiations while at the table

iran is playing him like a five string quartet. >> what about the lifting of sanctions? i don't quite understand it. at what point do the sanctions get lifted and is it all the sanctions at once or is there a gradation at some sort? >> the president is going to try to unilaterally get rid of sanctions that were passed by congress on his own. we don't know exactly. >> oh, the pen and the phone thing? >> right. because the president thinks of himself as a monarch. he is not only the president but he is congress, too, in his mind. it's important for congress to stick up and defend itself as a separate branch of government to put a check on this president. i mean, it's clear that, you know, no nuclear facilities are going to be closed. no centrifuges are going to be destroyed. the iranians can continue to pursue uranium enrichment. >> both of which give them the ability to have a nuclear bomb. but you know what i'm reading, congressman, is that there is talk that the breakout time, the

time within which they will be prepared to have a nuclear weapon is two to three months. and with this new framework it's now a year. so why is everybody talking about 15 years? >> well, the iranians are -- i mean, as prime minister netanyahu said when he spoke to the joint session of congress, that the iranians look at a year or two months or 15 years, in the life of a country is so much longer. as the ambassador just said, the nuclear infrastructure is going to remain intact. who knows if the iranians would even allow access to weapons inspector because of u.n. security council they have the russian vote. >> right. >> the reality of where we are at today at this moment in time, what's not being discussed is the icbs. >> intercontinental ballistics. >> iran is a state sponsored terrorism. if they want overthrow foreign governments and pledging publicly they want to erase israel off the map. >> very quickly. no administration confirmed that

israel has nuclear bomb. president obama declassified or unclassified that and that has been a secret apparently since 1987. what does that tell you about this president? >> well, the president does not know who our friends are and who our enemies are. i don't feel like he's playing on the same team as me and my constituents. we need a stronger, more consistent foreign policy than what this president is lplaying. patience and resolve lead us down two very different paths. in t >> all right. congressman lee zeldin, thank you. coming up, islamic terrorism target christian students in a barbaric attack overseas. and christians across the world, are they safe anywhere? plus, vote in tonight's ins instapoll, why are iranians dancing in t streets to celebrate the nuclear deal? facebook or tweet me at judge

jeanine and we'll read some of your responses later. some

holy week often the most dangerous for christians in places where islamic militants hold power. and the death toll for the brutal attack on christians in

kenya university is now up to 148. new details from survivors who say the gunmen actually scouted the university where they knew that christians went to pray. and they separated the christians from the muslims before the killing started. with me now is senior adviser for in defense of christians, jordan. jordan, are christians safe anywhere today? >> well, as we know you mentioned the stories from kenya where about 150 christians were murdered and islamic militant group al shabaab, they roamed the hallways of the university asking all the students, are you muslim, are you christian. if they were muslim they let them go. at the end of the day 150 christians were murd ured. this is a majority christian university and majority christian country. if you look at it that way, no. i mean, isis, boecboca, they ar

attacking christian nos matter where they are. >> what can the world do? what can be done to protect christians? >> countries like nigeria and kenya i think we need to put more pressure on the leaders of those countries. >> what kind of pressure? >> well, they're only interested in the economy of their countries. we need to put more pressure on the leaders to understand that we're not going to invest in their country if they don't do more to protect christians -- >> are you talking about the united states, jordan? >> yes b and other western countries. >> our president refuses to identify in talking about kenya yesterday that the christians are the ones being killed. if he refused to talk about christians in libya, the coptic christians in egypt whose heads were cut off in libya, what makes us think they will put any pressure on those countries where christians are being

killed? >> i agree he has not done enough to put pressure on or let the people understand what the motivation of groups like isis is and who the victims are. tinge media -- you're the exception to this and fox news is as well, the media doesn't report who the victims are. well, kenyan students were massacred there. they weren't killed because they were students, they weren't killed because they're kenyan, they were killed because they're christian. just like the coptic christians. >> the other thing is the president has said before, you know, that muslims are being killed as well when he has any discussion of it. but even at the supermarket in paris -- i mean, the kosher deli. it was a random attack. no, the jews were attacked. >> that's important you mention, yesterday was good friday, also passover right now and tomorrow is easter. there's a lot of solidarity there. i think we have to call a spade a spade and not be afraid to understand the motivations behind these different groups

and to understand who the victims are and why they're target sxwled t targeted. >> thank you so much. my take, i'm a catholic. i respect the pope. i went to catholic schools. but over six months ago i wanted to know why the pope wasn't doing more. he has the ears of the most powerful people on the planet. he can call a meeting with billionaires, with christian leaders, with celebrities, with former presidents, with anyone who has the ability to make a difference. he can put political pressure on nations and leaders. turn the other cheek does not mean that the most you have to offer is prayer. with me now is the author of the new book "isis exposed." we've been talking about the massacre of christians in kenya. i'm really upset about this. what is your reaction to all of this? >> judge, i'm furious. look, jihadists in the middle east have made it clear that they are looking to liquidate christian from the were birth

place of the faith. judge, i'm glad you brought up president obama because, again and agains a christians are being openly slaughtered because they are christians, the attackers are making no bones about it. they're not hiding what they're doing. president obama refuses to acknowledge the religious motivation behind these attacks. it's shameful if the leader of the free world can't speak out about this, i don't know who will. >> but the point is he doesn't. so if he doesn't, erick, then he doesn't even identify or recognize them when they're dead. >> right. it's not going to change before 2016, judge. we can say this is what he should do but he's not going to do it. this is who he is. this is a man who can't even acknowledge that radical islam and jihad exists. a few months ago he gave a speech where he said the jihadists have legitimate grievances. people are joining isis because of economic hardships. it's a farce. >> yesterday in new york city you know, two women arrested,

one is a copy of the boston bombers with pressure cookers. another woman friday in philly, could these kenya attacks happen in the united states? >> absolutely, judge. i'll give you a great example. the dennia attacks were carried out by a somalia terror group. in minneapolis and st. paul we have 100,000 somali muslims living there and dozens have traveled to somalia to join, guess who, al shabaab. al shabaab made a threat two months ago against the mall of america in minneapolis. absolutely it can happen. judge, the goal of isis, al shabaab, all of these groups is to turn the united states and western europe into guerrilla war zones, where you're seeing a boston bombing, a kenya, a ft. hood style, a paris style attack on a regular basis in u.s. cities and they have the sympathizers here who may be able to make that happen. >> you know, when you see the women who are, you know, are not

just looking to go over there and join -- or marry these guys. they're looking to actually put together bombs. these are women who are learning how to use weapons. you know, i have a great deal of faith in our government but at the same time because of the freedoms that we have it's very easy for these people to kind of assimilate and not even be stopped, although the government has -- you have to admit, the government has done a good job so far. >> judge, we've had -- we've had great law enforcement and intelligence work. we've had some luck, thank god. but look, isis is a different beast because they're so active on social media, judge. they're propaganda and social media arms are run by westerners who are raised here, know the culture, fluent in english. they're sending out 90 tweets per minute. they're able to resonate with western youth, including women, like you said. >> thank you. and coming up, hillary clinton, she's at it again.

more fallout from e-mailgate. and former bill clinton adviser dick morris joins me live. what would he recommend hillary do? that's next.

and now for my second open. this one's on hillary's week. now hillary clinton said that the reason she had just one mobile device, a blackberry, and not two was because of convenience. >> when i got to work as secretary of state i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account which was allowed by the state department because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two. >> i get it, hillary. putting convenience first. i also have too many things in my purse, and it gets really

heavy. and then your shoulder gets sore and your back goes out of alignment. so it makes sense that you don't want to carry two devices. forget that you could have put two e-mail accounts on that same one device. we'll give you a pass on that one. but this week, we find out that hillary clinton not only had a blackberry, she had an ipad too. an ipad is at least three times the size of a blackberry. there goes that convenience excuse. oops. now, congressman trey, former prosecutor and a man who doesn't take kindly of lies and the disregard of subpoenas now has hillary between a rock and a hard place. tray dowdy is a former united states attorney. you got it, a federal prosecutor. now i know that you know, hillary, how federal prosecutors

work, given your extensive experience at the other end of their investigations. hillary, you do not destroy evidence, you do not conceal evidence, and you do not lie. your washington two-step is not going to work with tray gowdy. the tiger you poked in the eye when his committee sought your e-mails on libya. what am i talking about? your state department said you had no benghazi e-mails, and lo and behold, here you are using your blackberry on route -- en route to libya 11 months before the attack on our consulate. now, you represent the united states of america and you want us to believe that any e-mails at that important time would have been personal? now, i don't want to rehash anything here, hillary, but your reputation and your history regarding subpoenaed information

is not good. like those pesky lost rose firm files that miraculously appeared or reappeared two years later. so it's no surprise, given your history and your familiarity with danger zones, that you would do everything in your power to circumvent detection of information a prosecutor or select committee might want to access. especially if that information puts you in a bad light. what's that? you're a former first lady, a united states senator, and a secretary of state? how dare anyone suggest that everything you do isn't above board? hillary, it's me and you talking here. would those e-mails have shed light on your foundation raising millions of dollars from countries that you were doing business with as secretary of state? or would those e-mails have shed light on what actually went on in benghazi?

or why you refused to designate boca horam a terrorist organization? you're a smart lady, hillary. i get why you wanted a private server but you may have just outsmarted yourself. and that's my second open. and now here to break down the rest of the or dsorted details author of "republic no more." what's the latest this week? >> the latest is the extraordinary story about these e-mails that i should hasten to mention was not disclosed by clinton herself. this was discovered by the associated press off of a freedom of information act document dumped be i the state department. the a.p. poured through the documents that the state gave them and found a handful of e-mails that had a tag line at the bottom sent from my ipad. >> now we find out that she has

the ipad. jay, i want you to take a look at the latest fox news polls on hillary's use of personal e-mails. 28% say she broke the law. 19% say she did something unethical. 32% say she used bad judgment. and 19% say she did nothing wrong. and a second poll shows 51% say all hillary's e-mails should be turned over to the government. your take? >> well, look, no politician run for president wants an 80/20 split on that question. only 20% of americans have registered voters saying that she did nothing wrong? that is an extraordinarily bad number for clinton as she's about to launch her presidential campaign. >> well, but why is it that she's still the front-runner? is her party secretly looking for a backup? >> well, they may wish they could find a backup but, you know, the problem that they have is that hillary clinton has a very powerful organization, a

very powerful network of donors and politicians and varied interest groups who have her back. she has -- she and her husband have spent a quarter century doing favors for people and supporting people. >> but jay, excuse me, jay, they had her back when barack obama was a one-term senator and everybody, you know, flew the coop on that one. now, i mean, it's just one scandal after another. >> yeah, well, one of the advantages i think that hillary has this time is that the rest of the democratic bench is substantially weaker than it was six years ago, seven years ago. there's nobody like barack obama to take her on this time. >> well, do you think that, you know, quietly they may be looking for someone else? >> i think ideally they might like somebody else but, look, i think at this point most democratic operatives realize even if they wanted to replace her with somebody it would be very difficult and messy.

so my intuition is that unless -- unless the other shoe drops, they're going to stick with her. >> all right. jay, thanks so much for being with us this evening. and with me now, former bill clinton adviser dick morris. all right, good evening, dick. you were with the clintons in the white house for years. and you know how hillary thinks. if you were advising her, what would you tell her to get her out of this mess? can she even get out of the mess? >> there's no way, jeanine. this has gone way beyond a mess. this is a disaster. and i don't agree with your previous guest. i think that you're going to see o'malley do very well in the caucuses and primaries against hillary. >> tell us about o'malley. tell us about him. >> governor of maryland -- former governor of maryland, democratic nominee. as liberal as hillary on most stuff. taking her on in the primaries. and i believe that this latent

discontent with hillary, concern that the scandals are going to doom the party in november is going to mount higher and higher, and i would not discount the possibility that a candidate who is nowhere today catches fire and begins to move. we have to understand how this e-mail scandal is a gigantic river with tributaries which will keep us going for months if not for years. >> and you know, dick -- >> 30,000 e-mails come out. >> excuse me, dick. there's no question. this is a woman who understands the system. she's got more experience than anyone in government with federal prosecutors and investigations. did she -- she did it intentionally, i assume. she lied about the two devices. >> yeah. >> talk to me. >> here's what happened, jeanine. when henry kissinger was secretary of state he transcribed with the secretary every conversation he had with the global leader. at the end of his tenure, he

asked the state department, do i have to give these back to you? and the state department said, yes, you do. so kissinger didn't want to and he secreted them in a safe. the supreme court ruled, yeah, you have to give them back but only the state department itself can make you do that. so he was safe. hillary figured this same thing. she took office and she said i'm not going to sue myself to get these back. i can keep them in a private safeguarded in my house. what she didn't reckon on is that she would be so close to danger in so many of these scandals and the e-mails would be so decisive in those, that the demand for them would overwhelm her candidacy. and that's what's happening now. >> all right. got this woman wh in -- was in hot water in benghazi and yet her approval ratings were incredibly high. and now, you know, we've got this latest scandal with people, you know, when you talk about

e-mails everybody can relate to them. what is she doing? is she waiting it out? is she going to announce? what would you be telling her? >> she's -- she's hoping that it goes away. she's delighted that elizabeth warren is not going to challenge her at this point, although if o'malley does well in the polls i wouldn't bet on warren staying out. and she's hope that this thing just goes away for a time. but i think she's missing the point, that as she accumulates negatives and as people trust her less and less, and the deadlines loom for other people to get into the race, you're going the to have a vacuum here, pushing the people to have anal terchive to to hillary. because if she goes down in this scandal which i think she will, it will cause enormous losses in 2016. not just the presidency but mammoth losses in congress. i think the democrats have to be very worried about that taking

place. >> all right. dick morris, good to see you this evening. thanks. >> thank you. all right. coming up, guess who saturday night live spoofed last week. robert durst, and even jeanine pirro made an appearance. the can't miss video is next.

now, robert, is there any special lady in your life? >> or gentleman. >> or gentleman. >> well, there is one lady. her name is jeanine pirro. >> ooh, who is this jeanine? >> she's some [ bleep ] from new york. >> well, i hope she's not here tonight. >> i am. i'm always right behind you, robert. and i'm going to catch you with my own two gorgeously manicured hands. or my name's nott ejeanine pirr

>> she's going to die. >> that was last week's "saturday night life" spoofing accused murderer robert durst and sicily strong makes a pretty good jeanine pirro. i think a little too brooklyn though. but back to reality. durst is still in custody in louisiana. he appeared in court this week for a preliminary hearing minutes in, fireworks erupt between the prosecution and durst defense team stand judge decides to call for a postponement, pushing the hearing to next thursday. with me now louisiana attorney chick foray and former chief county prosecutor bob. chick, you were in the courtroom. how did it get down there? >> well, mark burton, the prosecutor, assistant district attorney is normally a very low key fine gentleman. his voice was cracking. he was very upset. he asked for a continue yans. the judge said no. it did get very heated. but mark burton, it's the first time i have seen ship gets loud and bois rouse as he got the

other day. >> i think, chick, there were seven defense attorneys at robert durst's table? >> there were. seven defense attorneys. i will tell you he's put together i called it in my tweets a dream team. he's got some local counsel, billy gibbons, he's got ike spears, african-american lawyer who is new to the team. he's got a qualified, experienced team, sophisticated approach, i think, to this defense. and they made some -- scored some points the other day, judge. >> admit that he can't do it alone? >> rhetorical question. >> okay. >> bob, you know, the fbi apparently was subpoenaed and they didn't show up and then there were fireworks. what do you think should be done? you ran a da's office. >> yeah, i think that this was a major mistake on my opinion on behalf of the prosecution. the defense that subpoenaed the federal agents to be there. what they should have done is move to quarter the subpoena but have the agents there. >> didn't they subpoena -- i don't know that they had

sufficient notice. >> i think as a prosecutor you want to make sure you let the court know that, judge, we have these people available but they didn't do it sufficiently and we shouldn't be put in this place now. he got the judge very angry. next thursday the judge is going to have a contempt proceeding to see why it was they weren't there. the judge was satisfied, the subpoenas were properly issued. not a good start for the prosecution. in my opinion, sophomore mistake. >> chick, preliminary hearing. none of this has to happen if you put the thing in the grand jury. >> it's a probable cause hearing. all they have to do -- all they had to do before is show probable cause. but you are correct, if the grand jury indicts, there is presumption this is probable cause and that's all that has to happen. >> this is exactly what i was saying. it takes a ten-minute presentation with one witness and grand jury on a key of -- this is the case in the box. this is the case that should get tried. all they got to do is go in there and shea they arrested the guy. some issues with search. they found the gun. they found the drugs.

that's a lock. it takes one witness ten minutes. i've been in millions of grand jury prosecutions. >> now, let me ask you this. what you've got is louisiana has a gun in the drug charges. l.a. has the murder charge. who gets to try him first? >> louisiana has to try this case first. >> why? >> prosecutorial tactics tell you this is a lock case. you can go in front of 12 jurors very quickly. they found gun. they found the drugs. and that's a 10 to 20-year sentence. he's 71 years old. it's almost a life sentence. once the prosecution gets that conviction the case in california for those prosecutors the steam is let out. they can relax. >> and try him. chick, what happens? does -- does louisiana try him first or do they send him out to l.a.? >> well, the whole issue now is the custodial situation, who facically has control of robert durst. if new orleans indicts him early thursday morning, then new orleans and state court will move forward. judge, look for federal court to get involved. they may have awakened a

sleeping giant here and they may do a tag team. they may call the federal government into the ring and the federal government may institute new charges. remember, it's a federal violation to be a it's a federal violation to be a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. >> every time you come up against robert durst he is in possession of a gun. people are dying left and right with guns. bob, you heard him say, jeanine pirro needs to die. he doesn't like me much. and have you ever been concerned about some of these defendants who are serial murderers to threaten you? >> absolutely. i have had protection at my house. the number one prosecutors at a particular location who are aggressive lawyers and they know when we step through the door it means danger to them. >> chick we have 15 seconds. do you think the d.a. will put in the grand jury? >> i think the grand jury will indict or the federal government will take the case over.

but i predict a state indictment thursday morning. >> we'll see what happens. thanks so much. >> thank you, judge. happy easter. your last chance to vote in the poll. facebook or tweet me. i'm going to wear my easter ears, mom.

and now for the results of tonight's poll. we asked why are the iranians dancing in the streets to celebrate the nuclear deal? nancy says because we gave and gave and gave in. laurel says iran celebrating is all the proof i need that this is not a good deal for america. and leo says unlike what you want to portray maybe they are happy their country won't be invaded and their lives will be saved. are you serious? they're happy their country won't be invaded. they are the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. and robin says because they snowed up and think we're stupid. maybe we are. vicky says i wonder what else we promised them? good question. kind of like health care. we won't know it until we see it. thanks for the great responses. i love reading what you think.

send me your thoughts on tonight's show. happy easter. tomorrow's easter. check out my thoughts on all the news throughout the week and great behind the scenes photos like my two dogs with their bandanas. that's it for tonight. thanks for joining us. remember too friend me on facebook and follow me on twitter. i'm judge jeanine. happy easter. see you next week.

jamie: a cowboy inherits a baron patch of prairie. >> it is not big enough. >> beneath the soil he finds prehistoric treasure. >> this is one of the most important discoveries of this century. >> this is a job -- will this cow poke's "strange inheritance" lead him to a boom or bust? >> lightning does not strike in the same place very often, maybe never