JOHN BERMAN (HOST): Does the president commenting on it as much as he did -- he went only so far but said quite a bit -- does that prejudice the case?

PAUL CALLAN: I'm surprised that he went as far as he did. I certainly understand him supporting Hillary Clinton. She was his secretary of state. However, he's also the chief prosecutor in the country, as the president. He appoints the attorney general. He theoretically controls the Justice Department. Does it sound like he's sending a little message to the justice department that I don't think you should prosecute Hillary Clinton? It certainly sounds like that. He should have, I think, said “She was a great secretary of state. I can't imagine she would damage deliberately the interest of the United States, but I'm leaving it entirely in the hands of the Justice Department because I haven't read the e-mails.” And that's the other thing, he says none of these -- he says I would doubt that she'd damage national security. Did he read all of the emails involved? Or is he just talking off the cuff? We don't know because he left his statement vague.

[...]

BERMAN: Could the words be used in an actual trial? His words.

CALLAN: No. I think everything that he said would be inadmissible at trial and it’s really just kind of sending a subliminal message to the investigators.

BERMAN: The question is, is he putting the fingers on the scale of the investigation?

CALLAN: Yeah, I think so.

Previously:

After Obama Says He Is Not Influencing Email Investigation, Conservative Media Claim President Is “Tipping The Scale” For Clinton

Fox Guest Calls Out Network For “Editorializing” And “Speculating” On Clinton Email Investigation

Politico: Precedent Is On Clinton's Side Regarding Email Investigation