Information, didnt know what they know. We continue with a discussion of domestic politics in the president ial race with bob cost blanca candidate. If anything, he has doubled down on being an unconventional candidate. And hes, from the getgo profited by the element of surprise. Everyone is political friends and adversaries, us everyone, have to wait and see what he is going to say or do next. We conclude with a look at Artificial Intelligence with lucy suchman nathan yal popper and Zeynep Tufeki tufeki. One of the things im is the language that is used. Now could see that as a way of trying to make things more understandable to us. But i think it actually mystifies and obscure was is really going on. So the algorithms that zeynep was describing which are very powerful, but we could hear from her description that they are basically reproducing the things that theyre operating with, are parameters that have been introduced by us. So and many of those are stereotypes. Rose more dns. More Hillary Clinton email investigation and rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by the following and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Good eveningk im Major Garrett filling in for charlie rose who is away. Were going to start this evening with a conversation about the legal aspects of fbi director james comeys decision announced yesterday in washington not to bring criminal charges against presumptive democrat i cannot knee Hillary Rodham clintonry clinton. Joining me Eric Lichtblau and ari pel ber. Let me start with you. Equal justice under the law did what james comey said yesterday meet that standard . Yes, based on the evidence they provided and what is publicly known, according to a very volume nows review of the emails, the fbi which means director comey and also the investigate ares and line agents read every email, interviewed the key players, looked at the Security Issues including legitimate questions about what it means to use a private server and what exposure that provides classified information, and then came to a judgement that i thought was quite clear in the way he stated it. That number one, there wasnt the kind of evidence to support the bringing of federal charges. Full stop, that is enough. But then number two he clearly wanted to go further and say this wasnt a close call. Indeed, no reasonable prosecutor, he said, would go forward on these facts. Eric, and yet there is this ongoing debate that people who have been in lesser positions within the government have been charged for lesser offenses. Is that a valid point of view of criticism of the conclusion comey reached . Well, i think its a valid question to raise. You certainly have, as you say outside lawyers, some of them even former prosecutors who were saying there are lesser offenses that have been charged involving the handling and mishandling of classified evidence, even if there wasnt intent, which is really the big thing that comey focused in on in his briefing, was saying that they found no evidence or at least not convincing evidence that she had intentionally violated any statutes. Other people though, who were prosecuted who also were not found to have intentionally violated statutes. And rudy geulianee who is a trump supporter who say partisan but never the less was an effective and aggressive prosecutor said one of the things that prosecutors look at, ari, is if you do it over and over again, that suggests intent. It could be if prosecutors look for all sorts of aggressive theories. I think what jim comey was talking about with intent which is the legal concept that is important to note here, is that they in their review didnt find an intent to either distribute or endanger this classified material. That this was a bug bud, not a feature. He also spoke to the lack of judgement or width of in setting up this type of system. But as others have noted, there are many aspects of the government process that have unsecured material. Alberto gonzalez was reviewed because he took materials, put them at home and in a safe in his office. Some people might think that sounds some what safe, it wasnt. That is an unauthorized place. It was a federal review of that and ultimatey determined was this case, that what he did was unauthorized but it wasnt a desire to break the law when he put it in a safe. And so i think another big question here is what do people think happened . Do they think that there was something focused on mishandling classified information or something else. Because a lot of what we have seen in the other prosecutions that did go to trial, which did include, yes, lower level officials, there was usually what i would call a plus factor. There was some endangerment of the classified material and something else, sometimes that was an expressed intent to give it to a reporter, which as journalists, a lot of us do end up getting this material and we have a broad view of why that could be in the so called public interest. But again, the federal criminal standard that comey is applying, it taking it and giving it away to an unauthorized person or what general petraeus ultimately plead to is a plus factor. Then there is compliance which a lot of normal people dont care about, the law and prosecutors care a lot about that. Some of theers other cases have been cited involved also the person who mishandled the classified information misleading investigators general petraeus admitted to doing that. That is a Free Standing federal crime there was in allegation of that either. Here. I think director comey did something positive by sharing a lot of information but that leaves a lot of people picking part dispar at aspects of it. I want to pick up on what ari said, because many people raised the petraeus case as something that fits within this is comparable and therefore evidence that the system did not work as it ought to have worked from a legal perspective. Would you care to validate or invalidate that theory . Sure, i mean i think you are right that the petraeus case was critical in this. The impact really was to box in the fbi because the feeling at the fbi was that yes, while there were similarities between the two cases, high profile people mishandling classified material the petraeus case was much more egregious even from the outside. Here you had a general, four star general who at the time was the head of the cia who knowingly gave his mistress what he calls his black book journals with all sorts of classified information. In them was tape recorded saying they knew these were classified and lied to the fbi about it. So those facts, i think from the outside, seem more egregious than those in the clinton case, as much as you can criticize her. And he was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. The case the fbi really went to bat with or the Justice Department and jim comey was overruled by eric holler in that case. So the feeling was if general petraeus doing all that he did was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, the lowest offense where does that leave us with Hillary Clinton. I think that was a big part of why you saw them not recommend charges against her. Rose theres. Theres a perception that something went wrong here, that maybe there was an unnecessary or erroneous expectation that the law would come down harder on hillary cln ton than the fbi direct are did. Do you think there is anything about this case that raises raises legitimate questions about, for lack of a better term, the sank tit of the rule of law . I dont think there is anything about this case that is normal. Everything, every step of the way has been usual from the profile of the one of the subjects of the investigation to the media scrutiny. And yesterday to the remarkable press conference that comey held. So its really difficult to compare this in any reasonable way to other cases. You can certainly make a case as many are that wasnt her neighbor, prom thens, that got her lenient treatment. People are making that case. On the other side you have democrats who are saying that she got worse treatment than other people might because you are the fbi director up there as is rarely ever done talking publicly, laying out facts blisserring facts about her her behavior and the decision not to not to bring charges. There is a lot there in the system that assures independence. So it is quite a serious burden for people who have political conspiracies to provide the evidence. Why did this bush Deputy Attorney general want to go to bat so hard for Hillary Clinton if that is your conspiracy. Why do all the fbi line agents who raid all the individual emails, why would they be doing this. It doesnt really wash based on what we know, as a lawyer and journalist, im always open to the evidence. There may be things we dont know. But we do live in a world where it is easy to throw out major charges and allegations and ask other people to respond to them. I think the fbi process and director comey deserves better than that, that is how a proach my factchecking. I will tell you something else, within minutes of his presentation, unusual as it was you had politicians coming out and saying that obviously it should have been the reverse. That is dangerous for our process. That Speaker Paul Ryan said this was clearly wrong and erroneous and so this was a problem for the rule of law. Quite the opposite, i think if he hadnt digested all the information, didnt know what they know. There are a lot of things that voter may want to punish, including potentially the way Hillary Clinton acted in her tenure as secretary of state that are simply not illegal. They may be unwise, they may be unsafe, and they may be judgements. I think its a good thing think being the connective tissue between the law and politics, that the investigation is over and voters can factor this in as information not a buy nary system of whether this was illegal or not they say they didnt find that. The investigation is over but the investigation of the investigation has not even started. That is true. The process was abnormal abnormal. So was it abnormal good or bad, people will debate that. Typically you dont have an announcement like this prior to the d o. J. Macking what is supposed to be their final call. So that is going o to be debated. I think at this hearing that the House Republicans are leading this week, this is a legitimate area of debate. The fbi director regularly testifies, there is regular oversite, and now he cant say this is an open inquirery, i cant talk. He will have to answer those questions so that is also legit and relevant. Eric to the point you were making democrats might well say, mr. Fbi director, under normal circumstances you might have issued a release, a staim or you might have just come to the microphone and said we looked into this it doesnt warrant a charge. Thank you very much, im leaving the stage. We rarely see democrats or Republicans United in congress. I think they might be united at this hearing tomorrow, both asking really tough questions of the fbi director from different perspectives. The republicans want to know why did you not recommend charges. And why did you make that public. The democrats are going to say why did you go public with all this criticism and was that proper. So he is going to get it from both sides am but i think hes prepared for that. You are right he did not take questions yesterday. I was sitting in the room and we certainly wish he had. But i think his aides knew that he was going to get hit from all sides on this. And the reaction has not been unexpected given how remarkable this case has been from start to finish. As you were sitting there, what was the question you must wshed you had a chance to ask the fbi director before he left . Thats a good one. Well, i think i would have asked him, given the standard that he laid out, why he didnt consider or recommend misdemeanor charge which a lot of people are now questioning as well, if there was, without intent, may be gross nedges, would that have been proper here . I think we are actually circling one of the important longterm issues here which is there is a tension between uniformity that we expect under the law. Please treat everyone the same, please approach everyone the same, regardless of who they are. Union fit. And transparency, tell us what is going on so that we know and can factor in, especially if you have a subject like this, who is in an election and voters want to make decisions. That is a tension to pick up very different legal example, we saw that play out in a lot of these grand jury proceedings around officers who were accuse accused or suspected of improper use of force. And we saw a very similar tension where some of these prosecutors who show were clearing Police Officers involved in controversial shootings put out more information than usual about grand jury proceedings which are typically as we all know secret. And they are supposed to be secret and that is considered a good thing. In ferguson, where it was a big controversy, and so that immediately goes back to that tension. And i do believe the internet and the public scrutiny is part of this. Things that we used to accept more as a culture or society as being done over there, we dont have information, are under pressure, not legal pressure because grand jury proceedings are legally secret, period. But under a type of extra legal or political or public pressure to say were used to hearing more about other things, why dont we hear more about this. This say very different scen ar yovment obviously my analogy is not to the underlying conduct but to the procedural tensions. But jim comey was trying to do something there, he says that was for the good of the institution of the fbi, just as some of those prosecutors said we dont usually release grand jury material but we are going to because of exceptional interest. But again, you cannot meet, i dont believe, meet that goal without the tensionbacked unionity where other people are saying well, gosh, other people dont get this sort of grand jury treatment that these officers got. And that then seems unequal. That say tension that is very hard to solve, as for the question, i think the biggest question would be even if you cant describe all the classified materials to us by definition director comey, did you see the type of thing that really gave you pause as to how anyone could do this. Or did you see the type of thing that was looked bad in retrospect but wasnt actually at that high level. Because as reporters we still havent seen the underlying classified material. Eric, one thing that the fbi director said that caught a lot of peoples attention was well, we here at the fbi are not involved in whether or not you should continue your classified access status or you would receive administrative punishment. Many people would have said if Hill Roe Clinton were in the federal government she would have her classified access denied and she might be fired or demoted. Do you think that aspect of this will continue to be either debated or screut niezed . Sure, in fact, were writing about that question today. And we saw paul ryan calling for her classified briefings to be denied as a president ial candidate, the major president ial candidate by custom, get president ial get classified briefings. After the conventions, right. In light of this, she should not. So there will certainly be ramifications, the state department has been looking at administratively whether those people are still employed who might have been involved in this should be in any jeopardy. And i think mrs. s no doubt that there will be ongoing questions involving Security Status for people involved. Because that is an important process, about not necessarily legal question but a process question. With gravity. Lets be clear. We were talking a lot about the law. When you talk about policy, what is going on in someones mind who is in Public Service with account ability to the government and a system that relies on the expertise of other officials who is so consumed with secretary resee or routing around the normal rules, legal as it may be, that they need to construct an entirely physically separate solo operation to control everything. As a policy question, that raises major questions about that persons trust in the system ability to work with others and not that privacy always means you have something to hide but are you not entitled typically for that kind of privacy for work material. I think thats a big question about why is this individual, Hillary Clinton, so prone to secretary resee. All right, thank you so very much. Thank you. We continue this evening with politics specifically president ial politics. Joining me from cincinnati, bob costa of the Washington Post and in washington Colleen Nelson and bob corker takes himself out of the running as the potential running mate, where does the short list for running mated reside. Great to join you, here in cincinnati, Vice President ial speculation continues for donald trump. He will be at an event here in the evening with Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker but hours before then, i got a call from senator corker, the chairman of the powerful Senate ForeignRelations Committee and he said even though he spent eight hours with donald trump on tuesday, meetings at trump tower new york, and an event in the evening in North Carolina, he believes because of his temperment, hes low key, his focus on policy, he decided to formally bow out of consideration. This immediately narrows the list for trump. It is a sudden departure because many people thought corker was being seriously considered. He was under vetting by the Trump Campaign lawyer. But this shows you some reluctance people like corker and others have, perhaps of being on the ticket, of being with someone like donald trump, a celebrity presence, a gre garious presence and someone who is con