You know, in the oath that brand-new citizens take, it contains six different references to 'the law.' If it's good enough for us to ask brand-new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the president do the same?

Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight. And you [the media] were supposed to provide oversight. That's why you have special liberties and that's why you have special protections.

While people are free to draw different conclusions from the facts, there should be no debate over whether the American public is entitled to have all of the facts.

She was fabulously wrong when she said it the first time, and stunningly arrogant in her refusal to express any regret for lying to our fellow citizens.

If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?

I don't have an issue with whether - from a legal standpoint, with whether or not government can impose the ultimate punishment on people. We do it in capital cases. Police officers shoot fleeing felons.

Even someone as lowly as an assistant U.S. attorney has to undergo a background check, and you're asked a series of very invasive questions, and you're expected to tell the truth and they're under penalty of perjury. And you're asked those questions so you can't be blackmailed or extorted.