Barbara McQuade

There is an exception for people at the highest level, the attorney general, White House counsel, but that is to make sure that the nation's interests are being protected.

So if, for example, the Justice Department is about to unseal an indictment against the president of Iran or the head of a terrorist organization, you might get the State Department in the room.

You might get the White House in the room to make sure this is not going to disrupt some diplomatic negotiations that are going on at the moment.

So that kind of coordination occurs.

But what's never supposed to happen is the president directing who should be charged or not charged.

That is a post-Watergate norm.

Yes.

So among them are some of the things we've already talked about.

One is this idea that you neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.

And that is to protect the reputation of someone who's investigated who might never be charged with a crime.

Another of these principles of federal prosecution, which provide a number of factors that prosecutors should consider when deciding whether to exercise their discretion to bring a case.

What is the public safety benefit of the charges?

What is the deterrent effect on other would-be criminals?

What is the public safety goal here?

What is the likely sentence that will be achieved if

the only outcome here is going to be probation, then maybe that's not a good use of our resources.

But there are also prohibited factors like race, religion, and political association.

So those are things we're seeing violated.

The other thing that came along was control over the way the president uses surveillance powers.

So because we knew that