Judge Jeanine Pirro: ‘Why Wouldn’t We Impeach This President For Benghazi?’ (Video)

In her opening statement on this week’s Justice, Saturday night, Judge Jeanine Pirro called the Ben Rhodes email a “smoking gun”  and Benghazi “the biggest cover-up since Watergate.”

Noting that “we’ve impeached a president for lying about sex with an intern,” and a “president has resigned in the face of certain impeachment – for covering up a burglary,” she asked, ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”

She continued with a scathing indictment, eviscerating  Obama for his total failure of his promises and duties as the Commander In Chief.

To add insult to injury, Jeanine seethed, “you condemn anyone who says anything negative about Islam! Mr. President,   it’s not about them, it’s about us. You represent US.  You’re supposed to protect us. And instead of condemning the terrorists, you criticize free speech. I don’t even think you believe in the First Amendment. And you’re certainly not a man of your word.”

“Mr. President, none of us want to believe that our president would let Americans die. The arrogance, the failure to act, the lies, the cover up make it clear, you, Mr. President have defrauded the American people. You, Mr. President have violated your constitutional oath. You have not faithfully executed your duties in the office of the president.”

She had on former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton on to talk about the latest revelations that have come out in the past week.

The judge talked to Rep Chaffetz on the documents obtained by Judicial Watch pertaining to Benghazi as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Chaffetz told Pirro  that now that they’ve been able to compare the Judicial Watch documents with the same ones they’ve received, they are noticing some differences.   ” …We even have a document where they tried to retroactively change the classification – it was an unclassified document –”

“You’re saying something very significant, now, congressman,” Pirro interjected. “What are you saying? That they’re changing the documents after they’ve been subpoenaed to benefit themselves? You’re talking about the same document. One is subpoenaed by congress – one is required by a court. You say they are — doctoring up these documents?”

“I’m saying that they’re different, Chaffetz answered. You put them side by side – the exact same document  – not all of them – but there is one that I have seen and I have looked at it with my own eyes. You put that same document side by side – different redactions, different classification. In another document, it was unclassified, and now they say, well, that should be classified. In fact we don’t want to have that one released until the year 2037.”

Judge Jeanine interviewed Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch to talk about the documents. He told her that the fact that it was Judicial Watch that finally got the documents is an indictment of Congress and an indictment of the media.

SEE ALSO:

NRO’s Andrew McCarthy has a new book coming out:

I’ve written a book about presidential lawlessness and dereliction of duty, called Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, which will be released in a few weeks. It is not a call for the president’s impeachment. It is an acknowledgment that impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one; thus the executive’s provable commission of serial impeachable offenses counts for little unless and until there is broad public consensus that a president should be removed from power. Impeachment is a political case that must be carefully built; partisan hackery is no substitute.

The foundation of any such political case is simply this: The executive branch is designed to make the president singularly accountable. That is why he is the sole official in whom the Constitution vests all executive power — AFRICOM moves, or doesn’t move, based on his orders because it is his authority that the armed forces exercise. The chief executive, James Madison asserted, would be wholly “responsible for [the] conduct” of his subordinate officials. Therefore, it would “subject [the president] to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.” When AFRICOM abstains from battle, or Lois Lerner obstructs an investigation, or Eric Holder misleads Congress, or Michael Morell doctors talking points, or Susan Rice serially lies on national television, Barack Obama is responsible. It is his bidding that they do, and by failing to fire or discipline them he implicitly endorses their malfeasance.

Outnumbered and fighting off wave after jihadist wave, Americans were left to die in Benghazi while administration officials huddled, not to devise a rescue strategy, but to spin the election-year politics. The most powerful and capable armed forces in the history of the world idled, looking not to their commander-in-chief but to a State Department that busied itself writing press releases about phantom Islamophobia. The president of the United States, the only constitutional official responsible for responding, was nowhere to be found.

We are left with four dead Americans and an emerging paper trail of dereliction stretching from Benghazi to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Benghazi is not about what Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta or Susan Rice or Ben Rhodes or Jay Carney or Robert Lovell did or didn’t do. The only question is: What was President Barack Obama doing, and not doing, during the critical hours when his sworn duty required decisive action? Mr. Obama owes Americans a detailed answer. Now.