Grrrr….
There is just so much wrong with this: http://nypost.com/2016/11/22/trump-wont-pursue-charges-against-clinton/
First off, it is not Trump’s decision to make. The basic principle is that the Attorney General makes the call as to whether and when to appoint a special prosecutor. That is designed to prevent politics from getting in the way of the operation of law.
Second, sending your ex-campaign manager off to deliver the news is entirely wrong. If you are serious you need to appear serious. Either Sessions or Trump himself should have dropped this particular bomb. Coming from Kerryanne Conway it is not in the least clear what, in fact, was decided. Does this mean there will be no investigation ever? Or is it the current view of the incoming administration subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Does it just include Hilly or does the “stay” include the Clinton Foundation, Huma, Cheryl Mills and so on?
Third, what does it say about the idea of the rule of law? It is all very well to talk about “healing” but not at the expense of having a justice system which operates differently for elite players.
I completely understand the impulse to be gracious in victory and to avoid even the appearance of trying to jail your political opponent. At that level it is a political decision and one which might be defended at a political level. However, at a process level and a legal level, this is exactly the sort of seat of the pants decision making which creates contempt for the Office of the Presidency.
Not smart Trump, not smart at all.
UPDATE:
“I’m not looking to go back through this,” he explained to reporters at the New York Timesoffices on Tuesday.
When asked if he was taking prosecution off of the table, Trump said “no,” but he appeared eager to move on.
“My inclination would be for whatever power I have on the matter is to say let’s go forward,” he said. “This has been looked at for so long, ad nauseum.“
Trump argued against prosecuting the Clintons, suggesting that it would be better for the country and his administration if they moved on.
“I think it would be very, very divisive for the country,” he said. breitbart
That leaves the door open but it is still a lousy way to deal with a question of law. Nice as it is for Trump to have an “inclination” the correct way to proceed is to leave the door wide open until Sessions is confirmed by the Senate and has conduct of the file(s).
Part of the reason for electing Trump was to restore some semblance of the rule of law and respect for process. Short cutting that process is not helping.
Jay Currie 
Honestly, I think Trump’s plan all along was to lose this election and use the power base that he created to blast Fox News off the crumbling pedestal of so-called conservative news network.
He must have been regally annoyed when so many people moved heaven and earth to achieve this improbable electoral college result.
Now he has to confront all sorts of unwanted problems, leaving his businesses in the hands of others, conducting his (ahem) affairs with the national press in tow, not as much golf.
He shoulda thought of all this in 2015 and let Ted Cruz lose to Hillary. I even entertain the notion that he released the tapes in October to prevent any chance of victory, just in case. He may have even had a promise from the Clintons of a big payoff if he played the role of gallant losing challenger as well as Mitt and McLame had done before him.
Am I kidding? Not really, I honestly think the guy would rather not be doing this, but since he has to do it, he will do it in the grand Trump style.
May God have mercy on our souls. While Hillary was good for a certain nuclear exchange, Trump may just lead us to a choice of ten different apocalyses, then retire and let Mike Pence try to solve it all.
If anyone thinks this is the start of some golden age, they will be massively disappointed. Nobody can govern the mess that our society has become (in any western country). The genie has been let out of the bottle, forget about American exceptionalism, there was once such a thing as western or freedom’s exceptionalism and that is on life support.
Just look at our choices. They range from mediocre to awful to absurd.
I think right now it’s a distraction.
There’s plenty of time after the inauguration to dismantle the Clinton Foundation.
I agree that it is a distraction. However Trump could simply have said that he’s appointed a great AG and that when Sessions has taken office and been affirmed by the Senate a decision would be made, properly, by the DOJ.
“Part of the reason for electing Trump was to restore some semblance of the rule of law and respect for process.” Yes, that was clear from his initial commitment to ban people from admission to the US purely on the basis of their religion.
Nope, he wants to aggressively vet immigrants from Muslim countries known for extremist views. He want to aggressive vet refugees to ensure they don’t hold extremist views. He does not want America to look like Germany, France, or Sweden. And if we were smart in Canada we would pressure PM Little Potato to do the same thing.
You can cry all day long about his immigration policies but in the end the United States of America have immigration polices that are not being enforced by the current administration, and that is a bad thing.
As for the treatment of Clinton, Trump should appoint an Attorney General who should appoint a special prosecutor and let them do a proper investigation… not that side show crap that they allowed the FBI to get away with over the past year and a bit. If she winds up charged, then it makes Obama and his administration look just as guilty as the old hag herself, and I have no doubt they are both guilty. The President of the United States lied when he said he didn’t know anything about her private server, the rest has just been a cover up so Obama doesn’t look bad in the eyes of the media and the fools who voted for the hope and change con man.
Yes, that is his new, bait and switch position. I assume you understand the difference between this and his original statement?
And where, pray, is there a “right” for non-citizens to enter the US?
Agreed on the Clinton thing (but as you said, it’s not his call anyway). I’m still trying to wrap my mind around Trump sucking up to the New York Times instead of banning them from the White House until an appropriate apology for their way, WAY over-the-top behavior during the campaign is offered. CNN was bad, but the NYT was worse…
I think at the end of the transition we will be stuck trying to answer this question, what is worse, somebody who doesn’t know what the nation needs, or somebody who does and who plans to turn that to his own personal advantage?
I hope Trump turns out better than my assessment would imply, but I will bet that he does not. The problem may be that a global crisis of some kind will muddy the waters so that trying to assess how he’s really doing will be a pointless exercise and trying to stay alive will be the new challenge. And at that point we may conclude that Hillary would have done nothing different, or worse things yet.
The big appeal of Gary Johnson was that he knew absolutely nothing. When you know nothing, there is a narrower range of bad things you can deliberately do. This is why Chretien used to be popular, people assumed that he was too dumb to be evil.
I love that you say used to instead of use use to.