So this guy after a year makes these statements that delve into Bergers thoughts and actions based on what exactly? Where was he a year before?

"OWEVER, when Berger relinquished his law license as a result of the Justice Department investigation on May 17, 2007, it allowed him to avoid cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding specific details of those thefts.

Even I’ll admit that THAT looks somewhat suspicious. But where you continue to harp on the unknowns, I choose to focus on what we DO know."

Somewhat suspicious?

Kool-aid aside here Rick, someone is willing to risk their entire career, money, freedom, prestige etc, etc to steal 5 EXACT copies of a document on terrorism and the who, what and where of Clinton and his cabinet, destroy only 2 of the 5 copies, but return 3 of them and that doesn't look or sound like a coverup to you at all?

True we don't have ALL the facts here, but Berger had his chance to plead his case and he failed and it had nothing to do with the idiot Bush.

Tom in Dedham, Mass,

“But you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren't Bill Clinton's secret recipes for chicken a la king.”

You can bet your bottom dollar that they were COPIES!

When you can prove they were NOT copies, lemme know. You saying they weren’t isn't PROOF. All your statements as to WHY he took them and rhetorical questions are either just conjecture on your part or lies – making them an unfortunate waste of screen space either way.

Consider the following per Berger’s Wikipedia entry:

1) Jerry Seper reported for the Washington Times, in his article "Berger fined for taking papers”, that after a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified COPIES of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed. His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.

Keep in mind this is the PROSECUTOR (the guy on THE OTHER SIDE) who said that.

2) On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger plead guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector stated "There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents."

So much for your “Presumably, notes scribbled on them by the recipients.” theory.

Could THIS be why he got such a lighter sentence then all you guys wanted?

HOWEVER, when Berger relinquished his law license as a result of the Justice Department investigation on May 17, 2007, it allowed him to avoid cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding specific details of those thefts.

Even I’ll admit that THAT looks somewhat suspicious. But where you continue to harp on the unknowns, I choose to focus on what we DO know.

Oh and as far as "looking guilty” and “probably having something to hide" goes, lets consider Dubya shall we? Bush 1) initially fought the creation of a commission to investigate 911 commission, 2) put as many of his cronies on the panel when he couldn’t successfully stop its formation (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993663,00.html), 3) repeatedly hindered the gathering of information needed to conduct the investigation and 4) NEVER took an oath before giving testimony before said panel.

Not that Dubya's shenanigans excuses Berger in any way, shape or form for doing something he clearly NEVER should have done in the first place – it’s just something I thought you should know.

James -

Jesus often spoke in parables. You’ve missed the point of this one.

"Liberal Christian positions aren’t for the faint of heart, James. It takes courage to turn the other cheek. We both want to fight the terrorists. The difference is: I’m not afraid of them. And I certainly won’t let anything they do change my American values."

David,

A little education for those wanting to cite "Turn the other cheek":

at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.

But for those who would cite "turn the other cheek" for why we shouldn't use coercize measures with our enemies…

Will you "turn the other cheek" if a perv is snatching your child?

Will you "turn the other cheek" if your spouse is being assaulted?

Should our soldiers "turn the other cheek" when being attacked by the enemy?

What about giving the eight fired attorneys their jobs back?

You mean Hillary actually cares about the law of the land? What about her stand on the 2nd Ammendment?

James -

My position is that of a great American conservative Republican military hero: John McCain. Most military leaders agree with this position, since our actions in violation of law and ethics leave our troops open to such violations. Torture is counterproductive. If you’d study history and psychology rather than taking your moral positions from episodes of “24″ you might come to realize this.

I would question enemy combatants to the fullest extent allowed by the Geneva Convention, Military Code and traditional American morality. I do not and will not condone torture, nor should any American citizen or any decent human being.

Liberal Christian positions aren’t for the faint of heart, James. It takes courage to turn the other cheek. We both want to fight the terrorists. The difference is: I’m not afraid of them. And I certainly won’t let anything they do change my American values.

"Torture, whether it’s slight or not, is a tool for cowards."

So David (Salinas) - what EXACTLY would you do with enemy combatants?

If our soldiers were to capture high-value Al Qaeda operatives involved in plans to kill thousands of soldiers and/or innocent citizens. What should we do?

Play patty cake with them?

Coercive measures are NOT for the faint of heart - which most liberals are. The terrorists know this and use the "weakness" of Americans against us. Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists would DANCE in the streets if/when a democrat is elected President. Then we can return to the "hands-off" approach embraced during the 90's - giving terrorists more freedom to plot, plan, and kill.

Ricky, we disagree on how to protect this country and that is fine, I believe we need to modify the pre 9-11 mindset and you are ok with the status quo. We agree on needed safeguards, you just want them more stringent and cumbersome, but I wan't the penalties for abusing them to be considered treason.

Speaking of treason, Sandy Berger and Billy boy, this was my unposted response to your INCORRECT answer that he only stole copies, implying they were the same.

What did Sandy steal?

Sandy Berger was director of the National Security Center in the Clinton administration, and as such President Clinton's top adviser on all national security matters. On Sept. 2, 2003, in a secure reading room at the National Archives building in Washington, Berger was reviewing classified documents from the Clinton era, in his capacity as Clinton's point man in providing relevant materials to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

One such document was a copy of a White House "after-action" report that he himself had commissioned, while still National Security director, to assess the Clinton administration's performance in responding to the so-called millennium terrorist threat before New Year's 2000.I am relying throughout on reports from the New York Times.) Berger put the document in his pocket and walked out of the National Archives with it.

Exactly a month later, on Oct. 2, 2003, in another visit to the Archives, he stuffed four copies of other versions of the same report into his clothes (some reports have specified his socks) and again walked out of the building with them.

At his own office later that day, Berger cut three of the copies into small pieces. Two days later staff members at the Archives took the matter up with him. He said the removals were inadvertent, and returned the two remaining copies of the report, but said nothing about the three he had destroyed.

Berger has now pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in connection with the theft (removing classified material from a government archive), and has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and give up his security clearance for three years. The charge also carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail, but Berger will be spared the jail time if the court approves his plea bargain.

The burning question here, of course, is what was in the three documents that Berger destroyed. We can be sure that Berger won't tell us, or more precisely that we will never know whether anything he chooses to say on the subject is a lie. The documents are irretrievably gone, and Berger can carry the secret of their contents to his grave.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren't Bill Clinton's secret recipes for chicken a la king. In fact, as a practical matter, there is only one thing they could have been, given the huge risk that Berger took in stealing them from the National Archives and destroying them.

Consider. All five were copies, or (as the Times puts it at one point) "versions," of a single document: an assessment of terrorist threats produced during the Clinton administration. These copies had presumably been distributed to various major figures in the administration, and later collected and placed in the Archives. What interested Berger about five copies of the same document? Presumably, notes scribbled on them by the recipients. And what could have impelled him to destroy three of the five copies, and return the other two? Surely, that the notes on those three copies made it all too clear that somebody high up in the Clinton administration had perceived a threat very much like what happened on Sept. 11, but then failed to do anything whatever about it.

For whom would Berger be willing to risk a jail sentence? For himself, no doubt, and for President Clinton, and that just about completes the list.

So Sandy Berger may belong on the roll of those, like Susan McDougall and Webster Hubbell, who have accepted criminal penalties to protect Bill Clinton from the truth. And what Clinton failed to do to defend the nation against terrorists may join his lifetime medical records (which the media generously never demanded) among those interesting things about Slick Willie that the American people will never be privileged to know.

That's right! And maybe the next attorney general will finally define the word "is" for us too..

Hillary Clinton:

For holding representative to a higher standard before the 90's.

Against holding representative to a higher standard during the 90's.

For holding representative to a higher standard after the 90's.

nuff said…

Did Hillary care about the Constitution when her husband was President? Will she care about it if she is President? Considering her past and present commitment to freedom, I doubt it.

Pretty altruistic, sounds great Hillary. Why did you not tell your husband about the great trampling of civil rights when we were listening to global conversations during his administration? Folks, all of this business about warrantless wire taps is a trojan horse. We have been doing it ever since the technology was available. When I was in the military, I had a friend in another branch of the service that worked at a place that did exaclty that, listened to everything they could on a global scale. Broadcasts, cell-phones, two-way radios, short band, side band, HAM…anything in the airwaves.

Of course by listening, I don't mean that there is a guy there with headphones on finding out what you and your buddies are gonna do tonight. They run DSP algorithms to look for patterns and when one is detected, then it goes further.

Well Yea that's what we expect from honest government.

Hillary Haters can't stand the truth but love Bush lies.

Go figer

The only winner in the War in Iraq is Saudi Arabia

“Slight torture”, Tom? Ask John McCain if he believes in “Slight torture”!

You say “Safeguards and methods SHOULD BE changed and modified from pre-9-11″
I say they must NOT. If we reduce our standards we become what the terrorists claim we are. We shouldn’t change a thing just because some punks bombed us.

Your position like that of Alberto Gonzalez, who said in a 2002 memorandum that the Geneva Convention seemed "quaint" in the context of the war on terror. Comments like that get OUR troops tortured .

The perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing were eventually brought to justice. It took a while to track them down, but we did. (By the way, Clinton warned Bush about al Qaeda the week he left office, and Bush didn’t listen). I’m glad that President Clinton didn’t over-react and bomb people that had nothing to do with the attack. I wish President Bush hadn’t invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

The whole point of being Americans is that we believe in something better. If we give up our morality out of fear, then the terrorists do win. I’m worried about terrorism. But I’m not afraid enough to give up my humanity. I’ve still got enough American courage to stick with the Geneva Convention and the Constitution.

Torture, whether it’s slight or not, is a tool for cowards.

Same as her husband did. There is not doubt in the American people's mind that in the scale of 1 to 10, Mrs. Clinton will break it.

I guess Hillary and Bill don't conviently remember WACO!!!!! Janet WHO???? How soon we forget!!!!

So, when is she dropping out of the race as obviously if the AG must care about the law, so should the President.

I am sure Janet Reno agrees with you, Senator

Hiliary is the consumate comedian making a comment like that being the wife and compatriot of one of the most vile and corruptable Presidents in American history.

Revisionist history Hilary, you should have been doing your part to ensure that the previous attorney general had MORALS and INTEGRITY. I know it's hard to recognize considering you don't have any either. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Slight torture to save all US lives as opposed to brutal real torture against our soldiers.

What about when that "slight" torture is used on our soldiers, by our government? That's not even mentioning torturing non-citizens for nothing more than being Arabic.

Terrorists don't live on every corner. We don't need cameras and wiretaps watching and listening to our own citizens. Just as we can't trust the government to take of our healthcare or our economy, we can't trust them to use unlimited spying power responsibly.

That is right Hillary. So, speak the truth and stop lying as well.

Tom, the Clinton firings were indiscriminate (they ALL went, all at once, just as Cabinet officials do at the start of a new president's term); they cannot therefore
be said to have had any particular motive relating to specific cases. Bush did the same thing with most of Clinton's appointments in his first year as president, and there was no outcry — because these kinds of mass firings are normal, and acceptable.

The issue with the Gonzales firings is that specific prosecutors were targeted for failing to carry out an expressly political agenda (using the Justice Department to help Republicans and hurt Democrats at election time). It's the difference between appointing a Supreme Court justice who happens to share your ideological perspective (which is fine) and appointing one because they've already committed to deciding a case whichever way you tell them to (not ok). See the difference?

Additionally, all of Clinton's appointments had to be confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, a Bush-sponsored change to the law in 2006 — just 9 months before the attorneys were fired — permitted interim appointments to last indefinitely. By 2006 it was clear the Republicans were in danger of losing control of Congress; this change was deliberately intended to remove
Congressional oversight in that event. Unsurprisingly, was only a few weeks after the event (Democrats seizing the Sentate) occurred that the attorneys were fired.

U give Clinton her own headline but you keep all the other candidates the same…CNN is just like FoxNews

Tom in Dedham Mass,

"So Shrillary, when your hubby fired all the US attorneys because they didn't believe is his political agenda, that was ok?"

You're STILL making the bogus comparison to what Clinton did?

I thought maybe you would have learned the first six times you tried.

Here, allow me to straighten you out.

Newsflash: Presidents routinely DO fire ALL attorneys when they take office.

Now, since you want to compare it to what Clinton did, tell us … when did Clinton take the UNPRECEDENTED step of: 1) removing selected attorneys; 2) in mid-term; 3) for “performance issues” - after they received favorable reviews; and 4) just so he could use a buried provision in the renewed Patriot Act to slip cronies and toadies into the vacant positions without Senate confirmation?

Answer: NEVER.

Stop trying to find a Clinton comparison for everything that a crooked republican has done wrong.

It makes you look like an idiot when you fail miserably.

"Slight torture" to save all US lives?

Feel free to voluntarily undergo some of that slight torture at anytime! But you might want to ask Cyrus Kar, Maher Arar, and Donald Vance how "slight" it was or how many lives torturing THEM saved. I'll bet you don't even know who they are!

"Surveillance being used is only too thwart plots in and out of this country by YES listening in on certain phone conversations"

Really? Is THAT why it was applied to DOMESTIC calls too? And e-mails? And why the use of national security letters was underreported by the FBI by at least 20 percent?

Simple fact: whatever this administration admits to doing (only after being BUSTED for it), they're doing WAY worse.

"You can't always get an immediate ok from a judge and that would impede on getting stuff done if the conversation is a CURRENTLY going on."

You can start surveillance at ANY time! You just need to THEN get to the office and get them pesky warrants within 3 days of starting the surveillance.

"her and Bill did nothing after the USS Cole bombing and many fine Navy brothers died with no recourse and he treated it like a criminal act and not the terrorist act that it was."

You SURE? It just so happened that there was not CONFIRMED intelligence (as apposed to Dubya's un-intelligence that he based a 400-plus billion dollar war on) that the Cole bombing was indeed Al Queada until AFTER Dubya took office.

Now tell us, what did Dubya do about it … BESIDES give 43 million to the Taliban AND then go on vacation?

Answer: NOTHING!

Ready to start trying to spin your way out of this now …

three … two … one ..

GO!

funny how hillary's reaction is the main article, and all the other reactions are just links, mere footnotes. thanks cnn, for showing your true bias.

OMG!! This woman is such an outright hypocrite and the liberal press never calls her on it. Lets see her husbands administration:

Sandy Berger? Where were you when he was stealing from the archives evidence of the Clinton's incompetence?

Clinton was the only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Tom, I saw the word "Shrillary" and stopped reading there. Clearly, the rest of your rantings would be just as immature.

Mrs. Clinton made this statement regarding the attorney general,The next attorney general," she continued, "when he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, actually means it."
What did she say when her husband "The President" lied to the country by saying I never had sexual relations with that woman.
Hillary - don't cast stones!

I'd like to applaud Clinton, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards for talking about the role of a real AG! It's a shame Obama used this news event to try and plug his own political aspirations. So much for the newscomer who talks of change, but just delivers politics as usual.

A Clinton that says someone else needs to care for the rule of law, have principles/honor/morals, makes me laugh.

For the record President Clinton fired and replaced all the AGs once he took office, which is normal procedure when a new president comes into office. However, I don't recall President Clinton going around firing AGs that he appointed during his term because they did not do his political will, but maybe I missed that.

WHITEWATER!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you Mrs. Clinton.

For all their (RNC/NeoCon) posturing - they are not concerned with the people of this great nation. There is no "hate" from the Democrats towards Republicans - there is just a very clear divide that benefits the right - keep us feuding, while they (Bush Administration) breaks every law, national and international - for their selfish purposes. No educated American can believe what the Fox/Murdock propogandist say and/or believe that there is some conspiracy from the Democrats against "poor ole' GW". This goverment is dark and mean. They will leave our country in a mess when they are out. Unfortunately, how do we change the mess that they created? We will be equally in disaray as the Iraqi people. Debt, recession and war. This my Republican breathern is what you have bore. I feel for the next President - there is too much to repair. How do we get our "laws" back? You cannot - not with out holding those for breaking them responsible first. Impeachment is the only way. 6 years of changing the laws and hiding behind executive priveledge? Only the President has that priveledge. All others should be held accountable. Fox News will call this "politics as usual by the Democrats", but we all know the liars and where they come from and live. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as told to you by Murdoch's Fox and Skynettworks, Washington Times, NY Post and soon, the Wall Street Journal. Propoganda is a very, very powerful tool.

All politicians are the same. Listen to what she is saying now. If she becomes the next president, she will do the same. She will expect her AG to protect her just the same way Gonzales did for Bush. We don't know who to trust anymore. Except God

Hillary Clinton is a nasty person. I truly hope that she does not win the nomination. She says truly mean things constantly, as well as irresponsible things like her comment regarding the current leadership in Iraq. Leading is difficult. Transforming a nation is a nearly impossible task.

Hillary needs to think before she speaks, and she needs to understand that even though she is just a Senator, her remarks are heard around the world.

She is proving to the world that America just doesn't get it - we are not in charge of the world, we did not take over Iraq, and she needs to stop acting like she is President of the world.

When was the Cole bombed? November of 1999? Did his successor do any follow-up? That's a pretty lame hook to hold up your accusations on.

You were probably one of those who accused President Clinton of playing, "wag the dog", when He initiated operation, "Desert Fox", which we now know probably destroyed the remaining remnants of Hussein's armaments, and when he retaliated for the embassy bombings.
To be misguided is one thing, but to be playing fast-and-loose with the facts, when you should know better, is just plain wrong.
Read "Against all Enemies" by Richard Clarke, or Fiasco, By Thomas Ricks, or, The looming Tower, or, Cobra II, or "Hubris".
Read a book, then get back to me, unless you're, "no fan", of those things either.

Van

Maybe Janet Reno would be available - she was sooooo great!!!

Spare me Hillary. You are just as porous as he is. Stop ridiculing people and focus on the skeletons in your own closet. Make sure they don't fall out.

Hillary Clinton is not qualified to speak about anyone enforcing the laws. She is one of the most proficient at breaking laws than most of the senators in Washington. The bad part is that the Democrat party is full of liars, thiefs and other miscreants.

Hilary isn't qualified to be a dog catcher, much less Presidentt of the United States

So Shrillary, when your hubby fired all the US attorneys because they didn't believe is his political agenda, that was ok?

Torture like sleep deprivation, barking dogs, loud music and waterboarding on a few cretins to get information that YES, may save a few Americans all the while enjoying 3 squares, prayer time, clothing etc, etc, I like many Americans who are not limited to the MSM and their biases are all for it. Yep, I am for it.

The MSM missed the stories where the torture rooms were uncovered that were still open for business in Iraq even after Saddam was gone and they were complete with manuals on how to TORTURE US SOLDIERS with knives, saws, fire and other methods.

Slight torture to save all US lives as opposed to brutal real torture against our soldiers.

Surveillance being used is only too thwart plots in and out of this country by YES listening in on certain phone conversations, not Bill and Monica discussing their next dalliance, but a certain, select pattern of calls from bad guys to bad guys.

You can't always get an immediate ok from a judge and that would impede on getting stuff done if the conversation is a CURRENTLY going on.

Now if it is an ongoing lengthy operation then all sign offs SHOULD BE DONE, but the latitude needed here is all they want and IF IT IS EVER USED for ANY other purpose than intended, PROSECUTE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.

I also am not thrilled to have a situation in my country like over in England and others where CAMERAS are EVERYWHERE we are, talk about an intrusion, but a necessary one to save LIVES. Cameras ae going up daily.

Safeguards and methods SHOULD BE changed and modified from pre-9-11 thought processes with as many civil measures STILL in place, and again if the added measures are abused for any means other than intended let's all meet out in "town square" and stone the bastards.

Just one persons thoughts, feel free to hammer me or agree with me, no problem.

I admit hat I despise the Clinton's for a few reasons, but mainly because as co-President her and Bill did nothing after the USS Cole bombing and many fine Navy brothers died with no recourse and he treated it like a criminal act and not the terrorist act that it was.

He treated many such acts in that manner and thus I believe EMBOLDENDED them for future acts.

For the record I am no fan of Bush or Gonzales either.

Have you noticed CLINTON has a saying on everything and it is always to denigrate the present adminstration. This is from a person that "stood by her man" when he lied to US, yes the people and to her. And in reality he should be in PRISON for that lying to the people. GET REAL HILLARY AND MAKE SURE SHE DOES NOT STINK UP THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AS SHE IS IN NY AS A SENATOR. I am embarassed to say I am from Arkansas.

The greatest challenge and threat facing the United States republic is the subversion of law. Such subversion led to such monuments to human bondage and suffering as Nazi Germany. Do we really want a Nazi America? Or do we already have one?

Senator Clinton doesn't realize that all of the appointee's which were fired were appointed by President Bush?? If anyone should be fired, it should be Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Shumer, Dodd, and many other Democratic Senator's. This will come back to haunt the Democratic Congress in the 2008 election.

There was no way that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could survive. No matter what he did he could not survive the constant barrage of the media, the left and the politicians in his own party seeking re election. He was used, abused and stepped on for political traction by his detractors. Being used for political target practice to hide the actions and incompetence of politicians in both party's is a no win situation.

It is quite disturbing that he had not resigned earlier. The challenge that the USA faces is the same with the Roman Republic and the Weimar Republic: the subversion of law. This led in the latter cases to the Roman Empire (with its deification of the Caesar) and Nazi Germany, respectively. Do we really want a fascist or Nazi America? Or, do we already have one?

When the new Attorney General is sworn in and swears to uphold the Constitution, maybe we should insist that he/she OBEYS the Constitution as well. Silly Me!

Now wait a minute. Hillary Clinton is saying this,; wasn't Sandy Berger of the Bill Clinton White House found with top secret government documents hidden in his clothes? That doesn't sound like upholding the law to moi.

Obama for Attorney General!

Sen. Hillary Clinton said Monday that the next attorney general should "care about the rule of law more than he cares about protecting the president."

WHAT A HYPOCRITE! DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO. Hillary's and Billy Bob Boy's motto

Senator Clinton hit the nail on the head, the next AG shouldn't have a political agenda. S/he should only care about the law and not what special interests want.

The irony is that it will take a Clinton to restore integrity to the Presidency…

Van

This is impudent, blatant hypocrisy. While president, Mrs Clinton's husband fired innumerable U.S. Attorneys. This, of course, was his right, yet no one complained when he did it. Yet now, when President Bush does it, it is somehow wrong..?!? The bottom line is that our government is both out of control, and out of touch, and we have both Democrats and Republicans to blame. Land of the Free… give me a break… A retired military officer.

We should have ALWAYS had an attorney general that has wanted to uphold the Constitution.

Now that he's gone, how long will it take to re-establish the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land?

Yeah, like Janet Reno cared about the law!

We should also make sure that when we elect a president, that telling a lie is telling a lie. Even if it is technically correct, but still misleads. Does this sound familiar Hillary?

I think it's in his best interest, as well as the President's. Such venomous personal attacks by the Democrat's will certainly backfire. This evil hatred of theirs is only further distancing themselves from the electorate. Nothing constructive or beneficial is being accomplished whatsoever for this country! Why do the Democrat's want to be so immoral and wicked?