Speaker 1: At the Republican Convention this year, there were a loud
Speaker 1: chants of lock her up, referring to Trump supporters belief
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton had broken the law when she used
Speaker 1: a private email server, and the calls to lock her
Speaker 1: up continued throughout the campaign at Trump campaign rallies. During
Speaker 1: the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, the candidate himself
Speaker 1: made it very clear that he agreed, if I win,
Speaker 1: I am going to instruct my Attorney general to get
Speaker 1: a special prosecutor to look into your situation. It's just
Speaker 1: awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is not in charge of the law in our country,
Speaker 1: because you'd be in jail. But this week, in an
Speaker 1: interview with The New York Times, the President elect said
Speaker 1: he does not want a renewed investigation or prosecution of
Speaker 1: Mrs Clinton because he does not want to hurt in
Speaker 1: the Clinton family and it would be divisive for the
Speaker 1: country with us to talk about the president elect change
Speaker 1: of position. Our Devin Schindler, a professor at the Cooley
Speaker 1: Law School, and Paul Charlton, a partner at Steptoe and Johnson,
Speaker 1: in a four or United States attorney welcome to both
Speaker 1: of you, Devin, If you were Hillary Clinton, can you
Speaker 1: now trust that the federal government is not going to
Speaker 1: prosecute you in regard to the use of an email server.
Speaker 1: You know, I read a recent study that indicated their
Speaker 1: presidents keep about sixty of their campaign promises, And from
Speaker 1: the moment that Mr Trump made these statements, I felt
Speaker 1: that this was probably one he wasn't going to keep because,
Speaker 1: among other things, it would such a terrible precedent. And
Speaker 1: as we're learning, there are also skeletons in the President
Speaker 1: Electrump's closet. So if I were Hillary Clinton, I don't
Speaker 1: think I was ever all that worried about it in
Speaker 1: the first place. Paul, is it proper for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: to be talking about this one way or the other?
Speaker 1: Was it proper for him in the campaign? And is
Speaker 1: it proper now given that this is really a decision
Speaker 1: to be made by the Attorney general. It was wrong
Speaker 1: for Canada Trump to suggest that his political opponent should
Speaker 1: be prosecuted. It that were he to become president, she
Speaker 1: would be incarcerated. That's inconsistent with the cornerstone ideas of
Speaker 1: our Republican offense. The way it is the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice is supposed to operate, so his most recent statement
Speaker 1: to The New York Times is a welcome one. To
Speaker 1: take back those earlier threats is the right thing to do. Devin,
Speaker 1: There's been some talk that, you know, before all this happened,
Speaker 1: that the Obama administration was thinking about whether President Obama
Speaker 1: should pardon Hillary Clinton in regard to the email situation
Speaker 1: at this point, and then, I don't think they've committed
Speaker 1: one way or another to what they're going to do.
Speaker 1: Do you think at this point the president should still
Speaker 1: be thinking about that? Well, I think the chances of
Speaker 1: partner highly unlikely because there's a series of cases around
Speaker 1: the turn of the sensor that basically interpret president's pardon
Speaker 1: power as allowing as a part of the individuals who
Speaker 1: have not yet been indicted to prosecute. But the acceptance
Speaker 1: of a pardon by someone who's been offered it is
Speaker 1: an acceptance of guilt, is a mission of guilt under
Speaker 1: the way the pardon power has been interpreted. So even
Speaker 1: if a pardon were offered, I'm not entirely clear or
Speaker 1: certain Ms Clinton, Mrs Clinton would take the pardon because
Speaker 1: in her mind, I'm certain she doesn't think she's done
Speaker 1: anything wrong and doesn't want to have that taint of
Speaker 1: accepting a pardon and thereby accepting responsibility for illegal acts,
Speaker 1: which I believe she doesn't think she has done. Paul,
Speaker 1: you said you welcomed the latest statement by Donald Trump. Uh,
Speaker 1: there are, of course two separate issues. Are two investigations
Speaker 1: that have been going on the Justice Department. There's the
Speaker 1: email investigation, which is the one where FBI Director Comey
Speaker 1: said there wasn't reasonable evidence to to to prosecute. And
Speaker 1: there's also has been an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Uh.
Speaker 1: Wasn't it premature for Donald Trump to come out and
Speaker 1: and say, even on that Clinton Foundation investigation, there should
Speaker 1: be no no further investigation, no charges. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: or that's what he said, or that his statements to
Speaker 1: the New York Times went that far, But even wear
Speaker 1: one to interpret his statement to New York Times to
Speaker 1: encompass the Clinton Foundation issue. What we know is that
Speaker 1: that matter is currently in the hands of career prosecutors
Speaker 1: and career investigators at the FBI, and the recommendation that
Speaker 1: both the Department of Justice and the FBI will make
Speaker 1: as it relates to that investigation is the one that
Speaker 1: will likely carry the day regardless of how it is
Speaker 1: the president feels about a potential prosecution in that regard,
Speaker 1: and that's what's important here, the prosecute the president. The
Speaker 1: president elect Trump ought not to make personal use of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice as if it were a political tool.
Speaker 1: It's not, and it is much better to leave decisions
Speaker 1: on whether to go forward with prosecutions to the professionals
Speaker 1: who are currently there. Well, all right, then, Devin, you know,
Speaker 1: given what Paul is saying here about the role of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, regardless of what the president an
Speaker 1: elect has now said, we don't really know what Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: if he becomes a training general or you know, would do,
Speaker 1: and what the prosecutors and FBI agents might recommend in
Speaker 1: regard to Hillary Clinton. So is it still possible that
Speaker 1: despite what the president elected saying, the Justice Department could
Speaker 1: go forward here? Well, two things. I completely agree with
Speaker 1: what was just said. But let us not forget that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the attorney general works
Speaker 1: for the president and we had an experience back in
Speaker 1: the days of Watergate where the Attorney General refused to
Speaker 1: take actions, specifically refused to fire a special prosecutor, which
Speaker 1: resulted in the president essentially firing two attorney generals in
Speaker 1: a row until he found a third, as followed by
Speaker 1: the name of Robert Bourke, who became famous later, who
Speaker 1: agreed to take the actions at the president requested. This
Speaker 1: is known as the unitary executive theory for those of
Speaker 1: you who are can loggia selt there. Basically, it's the
Speaker 1: idea that everyone who's in the executive branch at some
Speaker 1: level works for the president it and so although I
Speaker 1: completely agree that the attorney general in the d o
Speaker 1: j must remain about politics, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they still work for the president. And so it is
Speaker 1: conceivable and in fact in the American's history has occurred
Speaker 1: where the president is essentially over rule the decisions made
Speaker 1: by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General on
Speaker 1: the flip side, to answer your specific question, certainly, uh uh,
Speaker 1: the attorney general the Department of Justice could determine that
Speaker 1: exact criminal conduct did occur in its ongoing investigation the
Speaker 1: Quinton Foundation, and therefore charges would be appropriate. Paul, how
Speaker 1: concerned to you that the whole tone of this this
Speaker 1: campaign has damaged the perception of justice in America and
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. Well, Devon's right to remind us of
Speaker 1: the Saturday Night massacre and the firing of Elliott Richardson
Speaker 1: and William ruckle House. But it was in that instance
Speaker 1: I would argue, where the Department of Justice did what
Speaker 1: is right and the Nixon White House was embarrassed by
Speaker 1: their attempts to make personal their direction of the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. In that instance, I have a great deal
Speaker 1: of faith and the men and women who are career
Speaker 1: prosecutors there and in the men and women who are
Speaker 1: career investigators at the FBI, that they will do what's right.
Speaker 1: There is no doubt a political influence with the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: There is supposed to be. We're going to have to
Speaker 1: leave it there. Thank you very much to Devin Schindler
Speaker 1: of Cooley Law School and Paul Charton, a partner at
Speaker 1: Steptoe and Johnson. Coming up on Bloomberg law. A panel
Speaker 1: of federal judges has issued what could be a landmark
Speaker 1: decision invalidating political juryman during in Wisconsin as violating the
Speaker 1: Constitution for the first time in the United States. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg