On "Justice," Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's newly unveiled homeland security plan.
Pirro said that Clinton poses a greater danger to national security than the head of a terrorist cell.
She criticized Clinton for saying we need to defeat offshoots of al-Qaeda after refusing, as head of the State Department, to label Boko Haram -- the Nigeria-based Islamic group that captured hundreds of schoolgirls in 2014 -- a terrorist organization.
Pirro cited reports of Clinton's "relationship with a Nigerian land developer who gave your family's foundation 5 million dollars."
"And we should trust you? With the presidency of the United States?"
Pirro also criticized Clinton for saying "we can't afford another major ground war in the Middle East" after spearheading a mission to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi.
"You instigated a good deal of what you and others call the Arab spring, which has turned out to be a nightmare for millions of Arabs who've been slaughtered."
Pirro said Clinton's new plan amounts to "shallow slogans" after failing to make a difference as Secretary of State before ISIS became the most powerful terror organization in history.
Watch Judge Jeanine's opening statement above and read the full transcript below.
Who do you think poses the greatest danger to the safety of the United States? To your safety and that of your family?
That person is not a career criminal, not the head of a terrorist cell, not even your run of the mill thug. That person is a woman who will do anything to get elected.
I wasn't even going to do an open this evening because it's the holiday. For me--Christmas--and I’m generally in the Christmas spirit. But this week when Hillary Clinton laid out her comprehensive plan to bolster homeland security, I couldn't help myself - take a listen.
“Because it's not enough to contain ISIS. We need to defeat ISIS. Break its momentum and then its back. And not just ISIS. But the broader radical jihadist movement. Including al Qaida and offshoots like al Shabab in Somalia.”
Defeat not just ISIS? And offshoots like al Shabab?
So you tell me Hillary. Why, when you were in power, in charge of the State Department did you refuse to label Boko Haram a terrorist organization?
You remember them? They kidnapped hundreds of girls and that hashtag "bring back our girls.” Aren't you the self-described champion of women’s' rights?
And just recently, Boko Haram--that non-terrorist group to you--literally obliterated the Nigerian town of Baga reportedly killing 2,000 innocent citizens.
In 2010 you were presented with hard evidence of their terrorism. But no, your State Department, even after Boko Haram bombed a UN headquarters, pushed back against the CIA and the FBI who wanted them designated a terrorist organization. Thanks to you, since that time they have morphed into an even greater terror threat strapping explosives on little girls using them as suicide bombers.
So why? Why not designate them a terrorist organization? Reports are that you wouldn't designate Boko Haram even though you knew of their atrocities because of your relationship with a Nigerian land developer who gave your family's foundation 5 million dollars. And we should trust you? With the presidency of the United States?
Also in your plan to protect the homeland you say:
“We can’t afford another major ground war in the Middle East. That's exactly what ISIS wants from us.”
Really? Aren't you the one who spearheaded a mission to topple Moammar Gaddafi claiming that there was a threat that he might kill his own people?
You even order that the Pentagon take no calls from Gaddafi's son, Saif, who wanted to engage in talks to stop the mission. The truth? You instigated a good deal of what you and others call the Arab spring, which has turned out to be a nightmare for millions of Arabs who've been slaughtered.
So why Hillary? Why? Because you wanted to be a leader who could normalize Libya. It was so normalized that our ambassador and three other Americans were massacred in its capital--the first death of an ambassador in almost 40 years.
And you say you want to defeat ISIS by dismantling the global network of terror that supplies radical jihadists with money, arms and fighters. Aren't you the one who reportedly funneled arms from Libya to Turkey into Syria? Those same arms now being used against us?
And you want to intensify support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground? How are you going to do that when 500 million dollars of our money was spent to support local forces, who dropped their guns, their weapons and their drawers when they saw ISIS coming? Some plan, Hillary.
In summation you say we can defeat ISIS by smashing its stronghold, hitting its fighters, leaders and infrastructures from the air, and intensifying support for local forces, who can pursue them on the ground. That's a lot of talk from the woman who was in charge of our strategy in the State Department, and who could've made a difference before ISIS became the most powerful richest terror organization in history. But then again, you're the one who said:
“Shallow slogans don't add up to a strategy.”
And your shallow slogans don't add up to a presidency either.
And that's my open.