libel laws, which is not something the president can unilaterally do is odd or disturbing, to say the least. >> i agree. let's go back to the basics. the laws are controlled by case decided by the supreme court in 1964 called "new york times" versus sullivan. it was a 9-0 decision which said in order for a public figure to sue somebody for libel and succeed, you not only had to prove that the statement -- the critical statement was false, but you also have to prove actual malice, that the personal or the publication making the critical statement knowingly misdescribed, or did it with malice. i must tell you that every president i have known for the last 40 years at one time or another has said in private i wish that case was decided differently. but i can't remember any of them going public with in a kind of -- it's a 9-0 decision, and