WEBVTT - Trump Walks Back Clinton Special Prosecutor Promises (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.400
<v Speaker 1>At the Republican Convention this year, there were a loud

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:05.960
<v Speaker 1>chants of lock her up, referring to Trump supporters belief

0:00:06.000 --> 0:00:08.200
<v Speaker 1>that Hillary Clinton had broken the law when she used

0:00:08.200 --> 0:00:11.159
<v Speaker 1>a private email server, and the calls to lock her

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:14.600
<v Speaker 1>up continued throughout the campaign at Trump campaign rallies. During

0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:17.759
<v Speaker 1>the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, the candidate himself

0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:21.279
<v Speaker 1>made it very clear that he agreed, if I win,

0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:25.920
<v Speaker 1>I am going to instruct my Attorney general to get

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:30.080
<v Speaker 1>a special prosecutor to look into your situation. It's just

0:00:30.200 --> 0:00:33.800
<v Speaker 1>awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump

0:00:33.880 --> 0:00:36.640
<v Speaker 1>is not in charge of the law in our country,

0:00:36.840 --> 0:00:39.519
<v Speaker 1>because you'd be in jail. But this week, in an

0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:41.960
<v Speaker 1>interview with The New York Times, the President elect said

0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 1>he does not want a renewed investigation or prosecution of

0:00:44.920 --> 0:00:47.000
<v Speaker 1>Mrs Clinton because he does not want to hurt in

0:00:47.000 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 1>the Clinton family and it would be divisive for the

0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:52.840
<v Speaker 1>country with us to talk about the president elect change

0:00:52.840 --> 0:00:55.520
<v Speaker 1>of position. Our Devin Schindler, a professor at the Cooley

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>Law School, and Paul Charlton, a partner at Steptoe and Johnson,

0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>in a four or United States attorney welcome to both

0:01:02.880 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 1>of you, Devin, If you were Hillary Clinton, can you

0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:09.760
<v Speaker 1>now trust that the federal government is not going to

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:12.960
<v Speaker 1>prosecute you in regard to the use of an email server.

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.240
<v Speaker 1>You know, I read a recent study that indicated their

0:01:16.240 --> 0:01:20.680
<v Speaker 1>presidents keep about sixty of their campaign promises, And from

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:23.480
<v Speaker 1>the moment that Mr Trump made these statements, I felt

0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:26.160
<v Speaker 1>that this was probably one he wasn't going to keep because,

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>among other things, it would such a terrible precedent. And

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:32.720
<v Speaker 1>as we're learning, there are also skeletons in the President

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 1>Electrump's closet. So if I were Hillary Clinton, I don't

0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:38.240
<v Speaker 1>think I was ever all that worried about it in

0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:42.360
<v Speaker 1>the first place. Paul, is it proper for Donald Trump

0:01:42.400 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>to be talking about this one way or the other?

0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:45.880
<v Speaker 1>Was it proper for him in the campaign? And is

0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:49.480
<v Speaker 1>it proper now given that this is really a decision

0:01:49.480 --> 0:01:52.600
<v Speaker 1>to be made by the Attorney general. It was wrong

0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:58.280
<v Speaker 1>for Canada Trump to suggest that his political opponent should

0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:01.040
<v Speaker 1>be prosecuted. It that were he to become president, she

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:06.000
<v Speaker 1>would be incarcerated. That's inconsistent with the cornerstone ideas of

0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:09.080
<v Speaker 1>our Republican offense. The way it is the Department of

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:13.200
<v Speaker 1>Justice is supposed to operate, so his most recent statement

0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:15.920
<v Speaker 1>to The New York Times is a welcome one. To

0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:20.440
<v Speaker 1>take back those earlier threats is the right thing to do. Devin,

0:02:21.040 --> 0:02:24.320
<v Speaker 1>There's been some talk that, you know, before all this happened,

0:02:24.360 --> 0:02:28.480
<v Speaker 1>that the Obama administration was thinking about whether President Obama

0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:33.280
<v Speaker 1>should pardon Hillary Clinton in regard to the email situation

0:02:34.200 --> 0:02:36.680
<v Speaker 1>at this point, and then, I don't think they've committed

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:39.720
<v Speaker 1>one way or another to what they're going to do.

0:02:39.720 --> 0:02:41.679
<v Speaker 1>Do you think at this point the president should still

0:02:41.720 --> 0:02:44.639
<v Speaker 1>be thinking about that? Well, I think the chances of

0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:48.239
<v Speaker 1>partner highly unlikely because there's a series of cases around

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:51.120
<v Speaker 1>the turn of the sensor that basically interpret president's pardon

0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>power as allowing as a part of the individuals who

0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:57.560
<v Speaker 1>have not yet been indicted to prosecute. But the acceptance

0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:00.120
<v Speaker 1>of a pardon by someone who's been offered it is

0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:03.160
<v Speaker 1>an acceptance of guilt, is a mission of guilt under

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.240
<v Speaker 1>the way the pardon power has been interpreted. So even

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:09.160
<v Speaker 1>if a pardon were offered, I'm not entirely clear or

0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:13.200
<v Speaker 1>certain Ms Clinton, Mrs Clinton would take the pardon because

0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:15.560
<v Speaker 1>in her mind, I'm certain she doesn't think she's done

0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:18.360
<v Speaker 1>anything wrong and doesn't want to have that taint of

0:03:18.720 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 1>accepting a pardon and thereby accepting responsibility for illegal acts,

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:27.200
<v Speaker 1>which I believe she doesn't think she has done. Paul,

0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 1>you said you welcomed the latest statement by Donald Trump. Uh,

0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:34.640
<v Speaker 1>there are, of course two separate issues. Are two investigations

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:37.040
<v Speaker 1>that have been going on the Justice Department. There's the

0:03:37.120 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 1>email investigation, which is the one where FBI Director Comey

0:03:40.360 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 1>said there wasn't reasonable evidence to to to prosecute. And

0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:48.440
<v Speaker 1>there's also has been an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Uh.

0:03:48.720 --> 0:03:51.400
<v Speaker 1>Wasn't it premature for Donald Trump to come out and

0:03:51.400 --> 0:03:55.520
<v Speaker 1>and say, even on that Clinton Foundation investigation, there should

0:03:55.520 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 1>be no no further investigation, no charges. I'm not sure

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:02.480
<v Speaker 1>or that's what he said, or that his statements to

0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:05.360
<v Speaker 1>the New York Times went that far, But even wear

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 1>one to interpret his statement to New York Times to

0:04:08.120 --> 0:04:12.600
<v Speaker 1>encompass the Clinton Foundation issue. What we know is that

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 1>that matter is currently in the hands of career prosecutors

0:04:16.240 --> 0:04:20.200
<v Speaker 1>and career investigators at the FBI, and the recommendation that

0:04:20.560 --> 0:04:23.040
<v Speaker 1>both the Department of Justice and the FBI will make

0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:27.240
<v Speaker 1>as it relates to that investigation is the one that

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:29.560
<v Speaker 1>will likely carry the day regardless of how it is

0:04:29.600 --> 0:04:33.000
<v Speaker 1>the president feels about a potential prosecution in that regard,

0:04:33.000 --> 0:04:36.800
<v Speaker 1>and that's what's important here, the prosecute the president. The

0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:40.920
<v Speaker 1>president elect Trump ought not to make personal use of

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:43.599
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Justice as if it were a political tool.

0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:47.800
<v Speaker 1>It's not, and it is much better to leave decisions

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:50.640
<v Speaker 1>on whether to go forward with prosecutions to the professionals

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:54.440
<v Speaker 1>who are currently there. Well, all right, then, Devin, you know,

0:04:54.520 --> 0:04:56.320
<v Speaker 1>given what Paul is saying here about the role of

0:04:56.360 --> 0:05:00.080
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Justice, regardless of what the president an

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:03.839
<v Speaker 1>elect has now said, we don't really know what Jeff Sessions,

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>if he becomes a training general or you know, would do,

0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:10.680
<v Speaker 1>and what the prosecutors and FBI agents might recommend in

0:05:10.680 --> 0:05:14.080
<v Speaker 1>regard to Hillary Clinton. So is it still possible that

0:05:14.200 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 1>despite what the president elected saying, the Justice Department could

0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:21.599
<v Speaker 1>go forward here? Well, two things. I completely agree with

0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:24.200
<v Speaker 1>what was just said. But let us not forget that

0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:27.919
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the day, the attorney general works

0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:30.960
<v Speaker 1>for the president and we had an experience back in

0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:33.840
<v Speaker 1>the days of Watergate where the Attorney General refused to

0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:37.880
<v Speaker 1>take actions, specifically refused to fire a special prosecutor, which

0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:42.120
<v Speaker 1>resulted in the president essentially firing two attorney generals in

0:05:42.120 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 1>a row until he found a third, as followed by

0:05:44.000 --> 0:05:46.880
<v Speaker 1>the name of Robert Bourke, who became famous later, who

0:05:46.920 --> 0:05:50.440
<v Speaker 1>agreed to take the actions at the president requested. This

0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:52.960
<v Speaker 1>is known as the unitary executive theory for those of

0:05:53.000 --> 0:05:55.919
<v Speaker 1>you who are can loggia selt there. Basically, it's the

0:05:55.960 --> 0:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>idea that everyone who's in the executive branch at some

0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:01.440
<v Speaker 1>level works for the president it and so although I

0:06:01.480 --> 0:06:03.560
<v Speaker 1>completely agree that the attorney general in the d o

0:06:03.680 --> 0:06:06.560
<v Speaker 1>j must remain about politics, at the end of the day,

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:08.599
<v Speaker 1>they still work for the president. And so it is

0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 1>conceivable and in fact in the American's history has occurred

0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:15.719
<v Speaker 1>where the president is essentially over rule the decisions made

0:06:15.720 --> 0:06:18.440
<v Speaker 1>by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General on

0:06:18.480 --> 0:06:22.720
<v Speaker 1>the flip side, to answer your specific question, certainly, uh uh,

0:06:22.839 --> 0:06:25.560
<v Speaker 1>the attorney general the Department of Justice could determine that

0:06:25.600 --> 0:06:29.320
<v Speaker 1>exact criminal conduct did occur in its ongoing investigation the

0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:34.600
<v Speaker 1>Quinton Foundation, and therefore charges would be appropriate. Paul, how

0:06:34.640 --> 0:06:36.880
<v Speaker 1>concerned to you that the whole tone of this this

0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:42.160
<v Speaker 1>campaign has damaged the perception of justice in America and

0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:46.440
<v Speaker 1>the Justice Department. Well, Devon's right to remind us of

0:06:46.480 --> 0:06:49.400
<v Speaker 1>the Saturday Night massacre and the firing of Elliott Richardson

0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:52.839
<v Speaker 1>and William ruckle House. But it was in that instance

0:06:52.920 --> 0:06:55.440
<v Speaker 1>I would argue, where the Department of Justice did what

0:06:55.600 --> 0:06:59.280
<v Speaker 1>is right and the Nixon White House was embarrassed by

0:06:59.320 --> 0:07:03.080
<v Speaker 1>their attempts to make personal their direction of the Department

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:04.920
<v Speaker 1>of Justice. In that instance, I have a great deal

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 1>of faith and the men and women who are career

0:07:07.120 --> 0:07:09.200
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors there and in the men and women who are

0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:13.480
<v Speaker 1>career investigators at the FBI, that they will do what's right.

0:07:13.960 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 1>There is no doubt a political influence with the Attorney General.

0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:19.200
<v Speaker 1>There is supposed to be. We're going to have to

0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:22.000
<v Speaker 1>leave it there. Thank you very much to Devin Schindler

0:07:22.000 --> 0:07:24.360
<v Speaker 1>of Cooley Law School and Paul Charton, a partner at

0:07:24.400 --> 0:07:28.240
<v Speaker 1>Steptoe and Johnson. Coming up on Bloomberg law. A panel

0:07:28.280 --> 0:07:30.920
<v Speaker 1>of federal judges has issued what could be a landmark

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:35.640
<v Speaker 1>decision invalidating political juryman during in Wisconsin as violating the

0:07:35.680 --> 0:07:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Constitution for the first time in the United States. This

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:40.080
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg