The proper question is why should he prosecute her?  Or, why shouldn't he prosecute her?

Actually, under the law, he can't do either (well, he could pardon her, but he is neither the prosecuter nor the investigator.  And he is supposed to stay independent from the Attorney General and the DOJ and the FBI (unlike Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch with Obama).

I think his DOJ should have the FBI continue the investigation of the interactions with the Clinton Foundation, and proscecute if they find cause.  But I think that it should be done in silent with not a word until they indict, and then no comments till after the trial and the judge should impose a gag order - the idea being to minimize the politization.  It would be wise if Trump took Jeff Sessions aside and tell him, "If you continue any Clinton investigations, it should be strictly on the merits of the case - the evidence - and do not tell me or anyone on my staff, either way."

And it would be better if Congress discontinues their investigations of Clinton.  There is no gain from engaging in what looks like revenge or pure partisanship.  They can't do anything with anyone that is no longer in office - they have no teeth.

But the DOJ must keep going for the sake of justice.  Nixon should have done time in jail, Bill Clinton should have done time in jail for his perjury... if the system never gives a pass to those at the top, there will be fewer people at the top that will break the law.  If people knew in advance that corruption would be found out AND punished, it might even raise the level of people running for office.

Luke, you don't need to reword anything.  When I said, "The question should be...." I was just being rhetorical, as a way of focusing on the purpose behind a given choice.

If the Clintons aren't prosecuted for crimes they've committed it sets a terrible precendent; we are much less a nation of laws; it gives a pass to corruption at the highest level; it reinforces the idea of elites having a different set of rules; and it spits in the face of justice. 

If they are prosecuted, it keeps the country in a state of intense conflict; it prevents any degree of the nation coming together; and it would either be, or appear to be, emotional revenge and partisan behavior; and, as you said, it would set a precedent for an election winner putting their opponents in jail. 

No good choices there.  Which choice is less onerous? 

The first choice, prosecuting them, is applying the law equally.  The second choice is failing to apply the law equally.  If a law isn't applied equally, then it is really is only being applied when those in power want to and that is very close to having no law - just the whims of the rulers.  From that point of view, I think that applying the law is more important than the optics of putting opponents in jail, and the huge national political turmoil inherent in the second choice. 

If government is no longer required to act according to law - in every instance - then we have implicitly adopted the idea that those in power get to do what they can get away with.  It is a sanction of authoritarianism. 

There is a cost no matter which is chosen.  For me, prosecuting the Clintons is like taking a medicine that has some awful side-effects, but letting the disease run unchecked would, in time, be fatal.

Being a nation of laws should be an absolute.  As private citizens, we often - maybe daily - make choices where there is no clear cut advantage or distinction.  We can let those very close calls be decided by a whim, by convention, by habit, or flip a coin.  But anyone engaged in government business should never take an action or make a decision that doesn't flow directly from answering which choice best represents the law as it applies there.  if they really can't see a legal distinction between the available choice, they should refer it to the judiciary whose job is to interpret the law. 

Mike wrote:

I do think he's a lot smarter than anyone gives him credit for.

Ditto!

My 2 cents solution: Individual Responsibility

Of the elected, of their inner and outer circle, of each and every voter. As things stand the shirking of individual responsibility has made politicians like the Trumps, Clintons, Obamas, Bushes, etc. possible in the first place. The voter does not take responsibility for the president / party he voted for, the president does not take responsibility for his actions / cabinet (which is chosen only by him at his whim), the cabinet does not take responsibility for their actions / employees (only responsible to their bosses whims - or rather afraid of their bosses instead of responsible to them ;), and on to the merry-go-round until we end up back with the voter again (who does not even take responsibility for his own life, not to mention for his vote to give his power to someone else).

If each and every individual (no matter which 'pigeon-hole' he does or does not adhere to) would take full responsibility for their own lives we would not have a corrupt system of government getting away with any crime du jour because everyone has their own agenda of shirking that responsibility and letting somebody else take the fall for it or making deals to cover it up.

In German we have a saying: "Den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben". Closest analogy in English: "From the frying pan into the fire", with the added overtone of one evil being actively replacing another evil, not just passively falling down the rabbit hole. If Trump were an honest responsible individual there would be no issue with him prosecuting Clinton (or not). It would be based on evidence at hand and nothing else. Everybody would applaud him for that. However he is not such an individual. He used prosecution of Clinton as a smear-campaign during the election, even to some (high?) degree influencing the election itself with the latest incriminations of emails that were not even proven to have anything to do with Clinton's email-leak. He dug his own grave with this smear-campaign so let him dig himself out of it again. No pity from me - he'd have to prosecute himself (for corruption, nepotism, tax evasion (which I'd even applaud ;), personal insults / slander (which I do not applaud!), and whatever else I do not know of) if he really wanted to 'make America great again'.

As for the 'corrupt system': voters made this system possible in the first place - let them lie in the bed they made. I'm sitting here on the sidelines (with quite a few waves breaking over European shores over this and other elections) and having a good laugh at the naivetee of people thinking they now got a smart and honest man, a 'doer' who will get them out of this mess. However the laugh will soon fade when I get a good look how f..... this world really is to make such abhorrence possible. We have our own AfD and Pegida to deal with in gud ol Djörmänie - and Erdowahn trying to muscle in on the European pantry :(

It's always easier to consume / destroy sth than to create it ...

VSD

Well, I'd say the Donald has his hands full at the moment, but still, he's the kind of guy who likes to get lots of things done all at once to overwhelm the enemy, so tossing some special prosecutors into the mix for the likes of Hillary would not be a bad thing at this point.