Why does not the MSM ever report the truth when it comes to their leftist comrades? It is just amazing how with all the so called political journelist none of them pick up on her spinning of the law and the truth. The fact she has no platform other then to the crowd she is speaking to at the moment the press gives her a pass.

Here is some of what she had to say:

"Having lost so much of my own privacy in recent years I have a deep appreciation of its value and a firm commitment to protecting it for all the rest of you," she said, prompting laughter from the audience of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
(THE LAUGHTER MUST BE FOR THE FACT SHE NEVER LOOKED FOR THEIR PROTECTION.)

She ruefully called herself an "expert" in the loss of privacy. What lose I ask. As the first lady, a world public figure the lose of privacty is FBI files on republicans then hid them from investigators?
(THE PRIVACY SHE REFERS TO IS THE COVER UP SHE MANAGED TO ATTAIN WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION ON SOME OF HER MORE QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS WHILE HER HUSBAND WAS SLEEPING AROUND WITH INTERNS. HILLARY WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE SHE WAS THE TARGET OF A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIROCY WHEN IN FACT ALL SHE WAS WAS A SUSPECT IN AN INVESTIGATION. SHE LOSED NO MORE PRIVACY THEN ANY OTHER PERSON WHO MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW.)

Hillary urged creation of a "privacy bill of rights" Friday to protect people's personal data. Hillary also waded into the debate over anti-terror eavesdropping. For almost a year, Democrats have hammered at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's program of domestic wiretapping without warrants from judges. The administration insists it is both legal and necessary.

Well it is legal, and not only did it have judicial oversight in the form of warrents it has checks and balances. What is Hillary and the Democrates afraid of. Why are they so opposed to LEGAL searches and information gathering? They are afraid (demonstrated in their figned outrage over the search of a congressional office) that their underhanded actions become public. Her goal is to make it much harder for lawenforcement. Not a ralley to protect personal rights.

The fact it is necessary in the gathering and protecting of U.S. citizens, if you have nothing to hide then why worry.

The administration's refrain has been, "Trust us,'" said Clinton. "That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations."

"Trust us", isnt that what we heard for 8 years under her hubby? The fact her track record is very questionable, not to mention that her leadership abilities are suspect. I wonder what she considers a critical situation? The fact that there are organized groups of paramilitary terrorists who want to see not just you and me DEAD. But our very way of life. A way of life Hillary claims to support and defend. If this does not qualify as a critical situation then what does according to Hillary.

Again she panders to the left leaning progressive thinking crowd that give true liberals a very BAD name.