Instead of telling failed Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell to “shut up,” Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro chose to educate him with some truth.

Including the truth that, according to her, he’s a “special kind of stupid.”

Speaking Saturday evening on her weekly Fox News program, she responded to remarks he made earlier in the week in which he accused President Donald Trump of harboring a “consciousness of guilt.” As evidence, he pointed to some current and former subpoenaed White House officials refusing to testify to the Democrat-led House. He further claimed that this counts as an act of “obstruction of justice.”

Pirro, a legal expert who spent 15 years as the Assistant District Attorney of Westchester County, New York, before going on to become a judge, disagreed.

Listen to her fierce rebuttal below:

(Source: Fox News

“So if one person doesn’t comply with as subpoena, then someone else is guilty of obstruction!?” she asked incredulously. “In all my years in a courtroom, I wouldn’t dare even mumble that one under my breath. Rules of evidence are not only not honored, they’re not even considered. They’re not even relevant.”

She then took a dig at Swalwell’s failed candidacy for president.

“But why am I surprised? Here’s a guy who fought desperately to be president, riding on the Russia collusion train, and he registered zero in polling on the presidential scale,” she said.

And even after it was confirmed that the whole Russian collusion narrative was a veritable hoax and conspiracy theory, Swalwell continued to subscribe to it.

Pirro went on to address another set of remarks Swalwell made earlier in the week in which he claimed that former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s removal from office by the president amounted to an “abuse of power.” As evidence, he pointed to allegations that Yovanovitch’s removal was politically beneficial for Trump.

“Hey Swalwell, a primer, you’re still polling at zero!” she said. “Another primer, the president of the United States can get rid of an ambassador just like the president had the right to the get rid of Jim Comey, just like Bill Clinton had the right when he cleared out the U.S. attorneys at the Department of Justice. Don’t you remember your hero, Barack Obama, said elections have consequences. Or are you a special kind of stupid?”

Her point appeared to be that, once a president has won election, he or she is allowed to take actions that benefit them politically.

However, Pirro continued, that’s not the point. The real point is that nothing the president has done — he’s been accused of using a quid pro quo offer to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate certain matters related to corruption — was illegal. It’s a point that’s also been echoed by some White House officials.

This testimony will be swept under the rug by the MSM & Demonrats!https://t.co/rkyfzBBCf7 — Terri (@TSarsor1) November 1, 2019

“They all say the president is undermining the rule of law. What rule of law are they talking about?” Pirro argued. “Here’s another primer, whenever the federal government gives you money, they make a demand in return. It’s called a quid pro quo in politics, but it’s not illegal and it’s not impeachable.”

Fact-check: TRUE.

Democrats are especially fond of using quid pro quo to force other nations into doing their bidding.

“If you’re a city, town, village, state, or even a local D.A. like me, and you ask the federal government for money, they will require that, in exchange for that money, you do and prove that you did X, Y and Z,” the judge continued. “The United States does not give money because they are nice guys. They give money because they want something in return. It’s never a gift.”

And so what is all this about?

“We have [a] wannabe whistleblower motivated by his hate for the president, along with his attorney, who is either prescient or part of a long-hatched plot to get rid of the president,” she said.

“In the end, none of this matters or rises to the level of an impeachable offense,” she continued, before listing off some infamous Democrat quid pro quos, such as those that involved former President Barack Hussein Obama.

“I still want to know what quid pro quo Barack Obama got for the $150 million he gave the ayatollah in Iran,” she said. “I still want to know what Barack Obama was promising [current Russian President Vladimir] Putin through [then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev] at that hot mic moment he could do after the election.”

Yet…Obama was caught on hot mic telling the Russian President Medvede that he’d have more flexibility after his re-election! But…of course…there’s nothing to see there! #LiberalHypocrisy https://t.co/adDbFWD6nY — Heather B (@Heather23617129) November 4, 2019

“Look, if you don’t like the president’s policy, vote for somebody else. In the meantime, let the president do the job we elected him to do. That’s my open,” her monologue concluded.