If appropriate and consistent law enforcement is essential to the functioning of our democratic republic, does it make sense to elect a president with an extensive record of prosecutorial laxity?Is it a badge of honor to have overseen the administration of justice in a state distinguished by legalized theft of goods up to $950 in value with no adverse consequences?Is California really among the United States on this issue?Is it any wonder that retailers are closing and leaving its jurisdiction?Should that disruptive reality become the ‘American way’? I don’t care about the candidate’s gender, race, ethnicity or political affinity.If she wants to represent all Americans, she should think and act on their collective behalf.Anything else is a duplicitous charade, and the current lack of specificity on that critical subject is unconscionable. Without confirmed legal integrity, 248 years of building a respected international society is imperiled. It remains to be seen whether the electorate will fully awaken to this deliberate deceit.Seductive phraseology may create a veneer of legitimacy, but can this threatening pretense be maintained for a few more weeks to close the deal? Phil Osifer