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