On last night’s “Justice,” Judge Jeanine Pirro slammed President Obama for the prisoner swap that released five senior Taliban commanders in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

"So let me see if I get this, an American like James Foley is held for two years then beheaded. We don't negotiate for him, but we do negotiate for someone who is widely believed to be a deserter - both inside and outside the Pentagon?" Judge Jeanine asked.

"Since when do we trade mass murderers for someone like this guy Bergdahl?"

"It’s time for you to stop playing games. You didn't release, you unleashed five Taliban terrorists. And you have teed up more danger for America."

Watch Judge Jeanine's opening statement above and read the full transcript below.


You know, that five-for-one Bergdahl Gitmo deal stunk from the get-go. Why release those five? The worst of the worst, the upper echelon of the Taliban, commanders, recruiters. Not simple battlefield soldiers.

Rehabilitated? Reformed? Their sole mission is to battle and die defending Allah.  Death is the culture that they live in.

So what's the point of releasing them? You don't let a baby swim in shark-infested waters, because the outcome is inevitable.

But the Obama administration, at that time, said:

“I wouldn’t be doing it if I thought it was contrary to American national security. And we have confidence that we will be in a position to go after them, if in fact they are engaging in activities that threaten our defenses.” – President Obama on June 3, 2014

But this week U.S. officials confirm that one of the five is attempting to return to terrorist activity with the Taliban. Now there's a shock.

And I’m not talking about White House ineptitude, I'm talking about an enemy so hardened and so determined that they are willing to play the silly little games that we are so naively willing to believe that they'll be good boys, proven by the fact that they've taken up yoga and plan to go home and start farming. I didn't know the Taliban grew anything other than opium.

So how does the White House get out of this? The Pentagon's Admiral Kirby:

“We remain confident, as we were when we sent them there, that the assurances we've received are sufficient enough to help us mitigate any future threat that these individuals might pose.” - Admiral Kirby on Friday

So, Admiral Kirby, I guess the White House was wrong or didn't tell the truth. Oh I get it now, he really was a threat. But it's a threat you can handle it. But that pesky question: why five for one?

The same one who's platoon soldiers called a deserter in the midst of combat - an act punishable by death - and who may very well be charged with some form of desertion.

Why not trade one for one? We might have been able to use the other four terrorists as leverage to save other American hostages.

But wait a minute, I forgot. I forgot we don't negotiate with terrorists. So let me see if I get this, an American like James Foley is held for two years then beheaded, we don't negotiate for him, but we do negotiate for someone who is widely believed to be a deserter - both inside and outside the Pentagon?

Since when do we trade mass murderers for someone like this guy Bergdahl?

Remember, Mr. President, you never told Congress - as you were legally required to - that you were doing this lopsided deal. Maybe you needed those hugs with Bergdahl's mom and dad in the rose garden. But even then, there was something that wasn’t right

And don't give me this hogwash that they are prisoners of war who have to be freed when we leave Afghanistan. First of all, we haven't left Afghanistan. There are still 10,000 Americans there. We know you don't like the military, but why replenish the enemy when the number of remaining American troops is at its lowest.

A little primer here: Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war. The Taliban is not a country. They don't wear a uniform. They don't follow chain of command. They don't carry arms openly. And they kill civilians. As such, they are enemy combatants who can be held indefinitely, or until they cease to be a danger to us.

Now, Mr. President, I know you don't like terms like “Islamic extremists” and “jihad.” Now you don't like the word "terrorist”? Now the Taliban are not terrorists?

“I’d also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency. ISIL is a terrorist group. So we don't make concessions to terrorist groups … I don't think that the Taliban, um - uh - the Taliban is an armed insurgency " - Eric Schultz on Wednesday

Okay they're now an "armed insurgency." You can parse this crap out any way you want, but here's the bottom line: they kill Americans, they're terrorists, they kill schoolchildren, they're terrorists.

And just yesterday, the Taliban proudly took credit for killing three Americans. And you want to call them "armed insurgents."

So I say to myself, "What difference does it make?" Here's the difference: since you did negotiate with terrorists, and you're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, you can't call them terrorists. So now you have to call them armed insurgents. "Armed insurgent" is not even a recognized legal designation.

Mr. President, do you make this stuff up as you go along? Who are you trying to not offend this time? The Taliban? You think not calling them terrorists will just make everything better? Or did you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, where you negotiated not only a bad deal, but a deal that you weren't supposed to make in the first place.

Mr. President, stop playing games with words, and start recognizing that we're in a war. What the American people see is less of a war, though, and more of a war on words.

It’s time for you to stop playing games. You didn't release, you unleashed five Taliban terrorists. And you have teed up more danger for America.

Tell Judge Jeanine what you think on her Facebook page or Twitter @JudgeJeanine - hashtag #JusticeOpen.