American Minorities and Police Accountability: The Task Ahead for whoever ends up being the forty-fifth President of the United States?

Keywords or Terms: American Minorities; Policing; Dallas Texas; St. Paul Minnesota; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Second Amendments; Secular Humanism; Diversity and Humanity in Policing; Psychology of Policing Minorities; Accountability; Black Lives Matters; Philando Castile; Alton Sterling; Loren Ahrens; Michael Smith; Michael Krol; Patrick Zamarripa; Brent Thompson; and Dallas Police Chief David Brown

Although the deaths of two black men in the past fortnight arouse raw emotions and protests by the public, it may be worth a brief moment to consider post events’ debates on the issue of using excessive force in policing, especially when it comes to American Minorities; and, the probable impact of reprisal killings of five police officers in the City of Dallas, Texas.

The legality of using excessive force in public safety, even in time of wars, was long settled in 1952 by the President of the World Court, Sir Humphrey Waldock. Unlike the random violence of reprisal killings, the use of force in policing is relatively accommodated, when there is: 1) an imminent threat of injury or deaths to the public or nationals; 2) a failure on the part of local, state and or federal law enforcement agencies, including a foreign territory or state to protect itself against further violence; and, 3) an obvious weighted measure of the likelihood of violence spreading beyond the confines of the immediate events, atrocities of killings and or hostage taking. There was no failure on the part of the Police in Dallas, Texas, nor St. Paul’s, Minnesota and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to protect itself against further violence; however, the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, flunked the first and third test.

Based tentatively on the released videos viewed by millions across the globe, excessive or fatal force was applied in policing Philando Castile, resulting in his demise for driving, or being an occupant of a car with busted tail lights; an issue that has raised a red flag in police accountability. Further, excessive force was used in policing Alton Sterling, the “CD man” outside a convenience store in Baton Rouge Louisiana; another issue raising a second red flag on police accountability. Both victims were considered model citizens in their respective communities; and, depending on which American pressure groups you belong or default to, either deaths may be termed unnecessary death, or justifiable homicide.

Accosting Police officers in either cases may argue that excessive force was necessary, to prevent further violence, because either citizens had constitutional right to carry gun or a permit to bear one; and, may choose to use the weapon at the time of interaction with the police. Second, the accosting police officers in both cases may advance the argument that they found themselves in situations in which they had no other option but to use excessive force; although this argument will be lightweight or far-fetched. Attorneys or families representing the interest of Castile and Sterling may counter with the argument that the safety of the public was not in question, neither were the actions of both men involved in fatal shooting so egregious that the use of fatal force was the best and only available option. In both police interactions, first at Baton Rouge and second, St, Paul, Minnesota, the safety of the public was not in evidentiary jeopardy, neither were there weighted measures of likelihood of violence spreading beyond the confinement of possible atrocities, nor were the behavior of the accosted citizens, so intimidating to the police officers to warrant the use of excessive fatal force. Conclusively, absent any other documented or consequential information from both videos of use of fatal force by police, there were no imminent threats to public safety, neither were there eminent reasons to believe that the use of force was the best option to effect public safety. All these arguments and or positions will be sorted out before a judge and jury in the coming months.

Where these arguments, or positions, are going to be tough, conflictual and or problematic, begins with three liberties and constitutional questions that have bedeviled the process of policing Americans: 1) the right of citizens to bear arms under the second amendment; 2) the secular humanist concept of diversity as articulated in US Civil Right laws, or found in the romantic notion of a rich and diverse America; 3) the psychology of policing minorities, especially, black and brown members of American population. Police Journals are full of scholarly discussions on the subject of police use of force to effect public safety. Unfortunately, scholars disagree sharply on when the use of excessive force or fatal force is necessary in accosting suspect or effecting public safety. For readers who are not scholars of policing or criminal justice, the violation of human rights, possible allegation of racism and infallibility in policing minority groups in America is open to interpretation or levitation.

Does it matter if the use of force leads to increasing number of minority deaths, or will fatal shooting of American citizens in a routine traffic stop amount to a violation of police ethics or standard decorum of normal policing? Only the courts have the legal power to effect death after a conviction before a jury of citizens peers. It is important that uniformed police officers affecting public safety, do not resort to fatal shooting as first order of action in a routine police stop or interaction with citizens, except where the life of the police officer or the public is in imminent danger. Some ultra conservative police unions and police protection groups suggest that Americans need not be concerned with routine policing that results in fatal shooting of citizens, where there was a disrespect of police directives; incidentally in both cases here, there hardly appear there was either a disrespect of police directive or refusal of arrest that led to the use of fatal force.

But it does matter whether police use of excessive force comply with the rule of law, police ethics and professional decorum. It matters precisely because we are a democracy guided by the rule of law, with both geopolitical and philosophical reasons not to resort to the use of fatal force in policing citizens; or defaulting to considering citizen’s race, religion, national origin, and other superlatives, in policing America. No Democracy may flourish in a lawless state; and the way citizens are policed, determines if the principle or rule of law, fairness and transparency, are allowed to flourish. To rise above suspicion, police actions must adhere to steps, ethics and principles of accountability, going far beyond shooting citizens for reasons of busted tail lights or selling CD’s and Videos in a neighborhood store.

Second Amendment Rights:

United States would be free of violence once she articulates that protected rights under the constitution, the first amendment right to protest, the second amendment right to bear arms and any other amendments, are sacrosanct; and rarely in any situation, would police brutality be accommodated; and or, mowing down of police officers be part of the equation in public safety. It is imperative that policing rules adhere to the highest standard, absent the use of fatal or excessive force, except where the loss of lives is potentially involved; and although errors may occur in the process of effecting public safety, uniformed police officers must realize they could be held accountable for their actions, when it appears a line has been crossed that hardly contributes or ensures public safety. This element of accountability serves as a protection for police officers who uphold the standard ethics of their jobs; provides some comfort to citizens who fear their welfare is rough shadowed by police actions in many instances; and, alley fears of many who may identify elements of prejudice in the way police conduct their business, a few of which has resulted in questionable fatality.

The status quo of having prejudice, hatred and or violence driving policing; and or, killing police officers as retribution for police shootings can hardly be accommodated on the realm of public safety. Further, the mentality that police officers, out of convenience, easily resort to fatal violence, would always be frowned upon for a number of reasons, including the potential of lawlessness or vigilante justice by citizens and or groups who feel they are being targeted; and, the efficacy of operating a democracy with the rule of law being paramount. We may be sad for having police officers lose their lives to unwarranted violence, or retribution killings, with members of their families sharing in grief and risks of their profession. It is also very depressing to think that Castile and Sterling may have lost their lives to police excessive use of force or police brutality. In both cases, the issues of excessive or fatal force are untenable and negate principled interpretation of the laws of the land.

Diversity and Humanity in Policing

By now, there needs to be an open discussion of ethics, race issues and the right to bear arms by ordinary citizens with respect to policing and public safety. On the question of ethics in policing, humanist ethics - ethics of man, by man, and for man, men and women of the police forces, like all citizens, often make choices and assert themselves in whatever endeavor they are engaged. The assurance that police officers will conform to a set of policing ethics that would not endanger citizens cannot continue on presupposition that everyone would hold themselves to the highest standard of behavior; and, that all law enforcement officers commit themselves to the highest moral principle in providing public safety, whether there is a camera or no camera in documenting citizens’ interaction with police. Without conformity or assurance to the highest etiquette in policing, no one may guarantee safety of all Americans with the new development of policing minorities of color.

Unfortunately, just as many police officers believe in ethical transparency in policing, and many citizens share this philosophy, there are others among us, citizens and police alike, who are still grounded in ethical relativism; that the nature of ultimate reality, differs based on situation or persons involved in police interactions. The police officers involved in the use of force that led to the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, may be in the right, may argue that their use of fatal force in both instances may be unfortunate; however, they are based on prior experience in policing minority population in both respective cities. They may advance the argument that citizens asking police officers to exercise better judgement or restraints, are not faced with the day-to-day activities of policing, and could neither understand the risk and danger associated with a split second failures from paying attention in an interaction with the public. Police officer(s) advancing this latter argument or, who are gong-ho on holding their grounds on whatever measure in providing public safety, may advance further that ethical judgement in policing may be subjected to relative interpretations: will an accosted suspect resort to fatal violence if the police does not; or, would he or she conform to police directives when accosted by police officers? Yes, ethical judgment is necessary in the context of policing; however, it is essential that police officers interacting with the public, maintain standard principles. The use of force must still be within nationally acceptable policing guidelines; and if a police officer perceives danger in extraneous circumstances, the use of fatal force must always be the last resort, not the first; and preferably within national policing guidelines.

While Police officers who wrought fatal violence on the public may hide under the precept of relativism, insisting at all cost that their action in all circumstances are justifiable; and most of the recent events, while suspected aberrations in some quarters, are still within the prerogative of public safety. Relative to specific situations, while providing public safety, many citizens at the receiving end of police violence and brutality, especially many men and women of color who have died, and their families, demand justice on the ground, that objective reasons must be the salient criteria or acceptable efficacy in use of fatal force in policing. Suspicion may be an acceptable parameter for policing; however, neither racial, religious or national origin profiling of citizens, are acceptable factors in stopping, frisking or using fatal force in the course of police interactions. As articulated by humanists, policing must be conducted or based on insight, humanity and prudent reasons within the guidelines and provision of national standards and provisions of the rule of law. Police officers must learn to face their fears, or perceived fears of a certain segment of the population, on verifiable and acceptable universal morality and standards, never giving to prejudices or preconceived notions of what they imagine a suspect has done or is likely to do; or what had transpired in similar cases of interaction of particular segment of the population with the police. Verifiable reasons of violence may be acceptable in case of repeat offenders; however, a citizen interacting with the police officer must be given the benefit of doubt or innocence. Prior records of similar events or people, profiling of citizens must never dictate interaction between citizens and police, whether African American, Asian-Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans or Whites. It is only when police allow ethical judgement to become the focal point or parameter in police-citizens’ interaction, will the police find reciprocity of truthfulness, trust, honesty, sincerity and collaboration in effecting public safety.

Using robotic bombs to take out Micah Xavier Johnson may have been prudent to enforce safety and security of residents of Dallas, Texas, on that horrible night last week; however, this same reason, could hardly be justifiable, if Mr. Johnson was sitting or driving a car with the broken tail lights or selling CD’s at the Convenience Store. Unfortunately, the loss of additional lives happens to be the end result with Mr. Johnson decision to take the law into his hands. The traditional assumption that all police officer will live to the highest standard of ethical behavior when confronted with the same situation appears not to have been borne out with instances of policing all Americans, especially with the case of men and women of color. That is why the use of fatal force in policing Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, continues to be a matter of concern for many citizens.

Ethical impulses could not exist within reason and are often sought in irrationality; police officers confronted with a situation in which they had to accouter men of color have often resort to impulses that men of color are going to do them harm, and out of irrationality, many have used fatal force in taking out many good and law abiding citizens. This is why we now have a trust issue in policing minority men and women of color, with the following sad and questionable killing by police of the following: 1) Aiyana Stanley-Jones: while sleeping, an innocent 7 years old sleep; 2) Akai Gurley :while walking a flight of stairs in an apartment building; 3) Alton Sterling: while selling CD’s before a convenient store to make ends meet; 4) Amadou Diallo: while holding his wallet; 5) Corey Jones: while waiting for roadside assistance, bothering no one, by an undercover officer; 6) Eric Garner; while selling loose cigarettes around the corner; 7) John Crawford III: while holding an air rifle in a Walmart store; 8) Jonathan Ferrell and Renisha McBride: while seeking help for a broken car after a car accident; 9) Michael Brown: while walking down a neighborhood street; 10) Philando Castile: in a traffic stop for having suspected broken tail light, just as the police officer witnessed him bringing out his wallet to get his ID; 11) Rekia Boyd: while partying with friends and associates; 12) Samuel DuBose: while being pulled over for routine traffic stop; 13) Sandra Bland: while making an alleged improper lane change before shot by a cop; and, 14) Tamir Rice: while playing with fake gun in a community park.

The 1964 Civil rights laws and as amended in 1972, articulate the protection of minorities among us, because of the past experience of centuries of discrimination. The land mark discrimination law, outlawed discrimination in all realm of social life, including enjoyment of full and free lives as American citizens. The law was not meant to divide but to end all forms of divisions. Thus, policing disparately under any ground, by any police officer, that leads to an unusual loss of lives, including consecutive multiple deaths of minorities within two weeks, would reasonable contravene the civil rights law. The law was not meant to completely correct every moral failing of Americans, through legislation; however, it was meant to address provable harm to body politic where there has been suspicion of unusual violation; two in this case, involving the recent deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling.

Psychology of Policing:

The greater psychology of American policing is data driven; and the narrative begins with, not proven, but mostly suspected incidences of criminal acts in many deprived neighborhoods and communities; most of which are occupied by citizens of color around the country. Yes, there are alarming statistics of minority on minority crimes; however, isn’t this the same reason for policing of all citizens. Using the handicap argument that there are rising minority on minority crime as a crutch is a failure of the mind in identifying and defining the purpose of American policing. Police officers putting on their uniform everyday are called to serve the public, not decimate it. Policing is a higher order of calling, just like serving in the military; and, to paraphrase Biblical John 15:13, no other love hath a police officer, man or woman, to lay down their lives for their community. It is a honorable job not meant for just anyone, but a few chosen ones who understand the selflessness and confidence society repose in those wearing the blue uniform and badge with pride.

American Police officers believe that based on the incidences of crime statistics, there are higher ratio of minorities of color in neighborhoods or regions of higher incidences of crime. Nothing could be further from the truth; as Washington Post longitudinal data from 2014 -2016 (news reports, public records, social media and other sources) indicate a disputable contrarian, regarding the criminality of minority groups and put in focus the need to question unnecessary use of fatal force in policing men and women of color. Compared with mainstream American Population, 2016 killings, at least the case of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, mirror so much the experience of 2014 Ferguson, Missouri Killings of Michael Brown, which has resulted in the acquittal of the police office, which resulted in the Black Lives Matter movement, a movement that has devoted itself to raising the awareness of police accountability in policing of American Citizens.

Except American Police defaults to the Biblical Christianity psychology that, all of us are sinners, and the killings, whether justifiable or unjustifiable, are protected under the Judeo-Christian ideology on which American Nation or democracy is founded, there can be no other reason for continued disproportionate killings of minority men and women of color through the use of excessive force by American police. Yes, practicing Christian Policeman or Women may need to get in touch with the inherent goodness of anyone to build societies, rather than decimate or destroy it through the use of unnecessary force that result disproportionately in more of men and women of color  dying compared to mainstream population in course of their interaction with police.

The trigger happy policemen, a few with psychological problems, may want to re-evaluate their desires to curtail freedom of men and women of color by inflicting violence or engaging in vicious circle of violence that damage the body, spirit and psyche of many Americans. The ‘rebellion’ from the Black Lives Matter group, one driven by the strain of minds and spirits to find solution to the inexplicable deaths of fellow human beings; not necessarily a confrontation with the style of American policing, can also be imagined in the realm of finding answers to questionable deaths of other beings; and, the frequency of use of fatal force in random policing of Americans. Many in Black Lives Matter group, are saying, we are not okay with the way minority men and women of color, are being importunately policed; some often resulting in fatalities that are heart wrenching. The twist now is for the totality of the thousands of American police precincts to look themselves in the mirror and ask: Can we articulate the very deepest of human psychological problems, guilt, in situations where the community we are policing are dying in our own hands?

If Christianity, Islamism, Judaism, Sikism, Obatala, Osun, or whatever religion you believe, is superior to the materialistic worldview, so should any police officer practicing any of these religions, reflect ever so often the pedigree  of their religion in keeping the people and communities safe. If men and women in American Police Uniforms, caught or about to be caught, in one of the inexplicable deaths of one of the minority men and women through their own act or style of policing, would it be too much, if other Americans who truly believe in the spirituality of the fallen man or woman, ask the inevitable question, is killing of that other man in the hands of police keeping public safety; is it offering humanity a spring of water welling up to eternal life as prescribed in the scriptures? If many minorities are too scared of being killed by the cops, should it not be the duty of police to ask themselves, are we treating everyone equally and unsuspecting, no matter their race, religion, nationality or sex?

The truths and the words may be hard to see or come by, they may even test us, but mourning of fellow Americans are equally so dilapidated for everyone, including those wounded from the mayhem in Dallas, Texas; however, the truth is, we all have to look inwards, we have to reflect so much on how America polices her citizens. Just as many are saddened and terrified by unspeakable violence from the hands of Micah Xavier Johnson, so also are many Americans seeking answers to those videos showing the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. Just as be wielding are the deaths of five fine and judicious officers in the Dallas City Police Department, Loren Ahrens, Michael Smith, Michael Krol, Patrick Zamarripa and Brent Thompson, so also are many terrified that this same unfortunate events could have happened to any one of us. Maybe the consolation for now, would be found in the message of Dallas Police Chief David Brown, as he mourns the deaths of his five officials at the open air memorial service: “Let us change the truths to love; as we deal with the preponderance of violence on Americans streets, let’s keep loving each other until kingdom come.” This may only be the formidable and forcible future about American Policing.  May God Bless the United States of America.

                                                        ROSA PARKS (b. 1913 –  d. 2005)

                                                PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPH – 1950

                                        Source: Library of Congress – Visual Materials

                                                 

HOW A SUPPOSEDLY FRIENDLY AIRPORT TARMAC VISITATION MAY CAST ASPERSION ON THE OUTCOME OF G-MEN INTERVIEW OF FORMER US SECRETARY OF STATE?

Keywords or Terms: G-Men; FBI Interviews; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; President Bill Clinton; Phoenix, Arizona Airport; Quid quo pro; Democratic National Committee; Watergate; “Plumbing Unit”; Fifth Amendment; Government Official Violation; Ref Flag; Precedence of Action; Culpability; Licentious Intentions; and Reckless Violation of Public Policy

The mood this weekend at Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters is probably one of cautious optimism or hopefulness? There is a fervent desire to see Hillary Clinton do well with the FBI interviews on the private email server scandal investigation. There is also an apprehension that if things do not go well with the FBI interview, the campaign for 2016 White House may take a new turn. Considering all the aspersions from Republicans and Donald Trump’s campaign regarding President Bill Clinton’s incursion or visitation with US Attorney General Loretta Lynch on that tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona, Conservative Republicans have called out for a special counsel because they believe the Attorney General may not claim to be impartial at this time regarding the G-Men investigation of Hillary Clinton.

First, both Republican and Democratic legislators alike, see probable conflict of interest and have raised questions and concerns regarding the impromptu visitation of US Attorney General with the spouse of former US Secretary of State, about a week before interrogation or interviews of his wife by the G-men, regarding probable misuse of government equipment or associated privileges. In politics, the question is, is this another quid quo pro request from a former president, to which the current attorney general owed part of her professional advancement, or is this just a mere coincidence? Couldn’t the visitation had waited; or could either of the parties not see the possible interpretation of this visitation from independent parties? Couldn’t either visiting parties shown restraints or better judgement regarding a “friendly” visitation so close to a time of interrogation of the former US Secretary of State and presumptive Democratic Party nominee for 2016 White House race by the G-men? Can they, both the visiting duo, not imagine what may be going on in the heads of Americans regarding how senior government officials conduct themselves or complete government work in a time of contentious run for the White House? The burning question is, couldn't the visitation had waited until the completion of the FBI interviews, considering that one of the parties was said to have changed planes at the time of travel, introducing probable suspicious visitation or friendly courtesy?

Second, in official function and duty, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is supposed to have a final word very soon, on the interview between the presumptive democratic party nominee and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). If Hillary Clinton ends up being recommended for indictment by the FBI or if she is exonerated per chance, there is an already preconceived notion in the public eye that some underhanded attempt was or had been made, to steer the direction of the investigation or the decision, either way. A visitation between the US Attorney General and former President of the United States, a surrogate and spouse of the presumptive Democratic Party flag bearer for 2016 White House, was at best, a suspect, even if either parties meant well or had nothing to hide. Bill Clinton has been a campaign surrogate for Hillary Clinton, unlike other campaign staff, who may be sharing other information with the US Attorney General unrelated to the upcoming FBI interview of the presumptive democratic party nominee with the G-men, there is the plausibility the former President Bill Clinton may have raised the issue of the investigation of his wife during the twenty or thirty minute of visitation between the duo.

In this very contentious political climate, most independent observers perceive a visitation of this nature, between President Bill Clinton and US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as synonymous with Hillary Clinton meeting with the attorney general prior to her FBI interview, since Mr. Clinton is the spouse of Mrs. Clinton. The long awaited interview and prolong investigation of the former US Secretary of State may backfire or worsen the political atmosphere already associated with how either Presidential candidates and their parties are seeking the White House oval office. Not only has this visitation received condemnation by the presumptive Republican Party nominee, it has brought out some grieve reflection from vested political operatives who are interested in undermining the campaign of Ms. Hillary Clinton for 2016 White House oval office. If Hillary Clinton fails to convince the FBI that she had no ulterior motives in using a private email server in conducting government business, many of us can see a situation in which the contest for the White House may end up being a bad omen for the Democratic Party.

One can recall the similarity of this visitation with the case of Nixon Attorney General, John Mitchell, head of Nixon’s reelection campaign, with the “plumbing” unit, that sought out Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist files, or bugged the Democratic National Committee office during Watergate? Was President Bill Clinton attempting to know how much breaches that his wife had and which the G-men have in their domain and been keeping from her and the public eye? Conflict of interest means a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in a visitation with an official in capacity or authority to influence the ultimate outcome of events; or, any effort to steer or influence ultimate outcome of an investigation. When parties or surrogates of parties to an investigation, appear to be attempting to influence the outcome of an investigation, then a red flag is raised by individuals suspicious of development in the case. Is Hillary Clinton’s campaign, through a surrogate, attempting to preempt an interview between the G-men and the former US Secretary of State; or, was her spouse and surrogate laying ground for absolution of any erroneous motives or shortcomings in the use of personal email server for conducting government business?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch appears to have realized the possible misinterpretation of her visitation with Hillary Clinton’s surrogate on a hot summer day at the Phoenix, Arizona tarmac, as she replied to press questions regarding the visitation on the subsequent day with: “I certainly won’t do that again!” The emphasis here is, I have learned my lesson and would never mix business with pleasure, no matter who is involved in an instance as this? Political influence on how civil servants conduct business of the state are not new; however, the appearance of political influence in any event could be just as damning as the actual influence, to do what is not in the interest of the state? Further, it appears the Attorney General has realized why many lawmakers are scuffing and or frowning at her visitation with President Clinton just before the weekend interview with his spouse. In addition, as if recognizing the discomfort and concerns of interested parties regarding her visitation with former President Bill Clinton, the attorney general stressed she would allow the recommendations and judgement of career civil servants from the FBI and State Department to prevail in the ultimate decision regarding the investigative outcome of the former US Secretary of State’s use of personal email server to conduct government business.

Will a special counsel be necessary at this time or should we look forward to the definitive results or outcome of the interrogation of Hillary Clinton by the G-men, before seeking the inauguration or use of a special counsel? Outcomes of an investigation by the G-men are never determined by uproar from the public, since often, the general public is not completely privy to all information regarding the nature of offense that is being investigated in this instance. When G-Men conduct interrogation or interviews regarding aggregation or misuse or abuse of government equipment and or privileges, there are some standard questions or considerations that draw out probable culpability and in some cases, determinable culpability may just be too difficult to establish because of accentuating circumstances; including, when to give leeway to the civil servant regarding how he or she has conducted government business before being flagged for possible violation of government policy; or, lackadaisical poor judgement in completing specific requirements of his or her duties. Even where error in judgement is determinable, the question of whether the civil servant actually knew of the existence of a contravening policy that prevents engagement in unauthorized act or dereliction of duty, comes to play in apportioning blame. Rules change rapidly – to the extent to which they existed at all – and a contravention may not indicate complete culpability in a policy violation, if there had been a precedence to this suspected violation.

If prior US Secretaries of State before Hillary Clinton have engaged in similar behavior to which she is being investigated, it will be very difficult to indict or punish her, without raising the issue of disparate treatment. If her behavior in using private email in conducting government business had fallen into a remarkable tradition or routine among past Secretaries of State, if even by just one of the past secretaries, a precedence is established and a very good attorney can easily argue his way out for an exoneration. Culpable violation demands preponderance of evidence of willful violation of government policy; and potential offender must have shown gross negligence after being informed or alerted of the erroneous nature of violation of public policy, to be indicted.

To be frank with everyone, I doubt if the former US Secretary of State went into the interview with the G-men without an attorney to help her understand the G-men questions and the implication of her responses. The official determination of culpability is sometimes held so low, that except there is so much glaring error in judgment rooted in recklessness in violation of public policy in the eye of the law, an interviewee, in a defunct position or position she is no longer occupying, barring financial fraud, may hardly be held accountable for gross violation of government policy. Hillary Clinton’s case is a high profile investigation, the outcome of which could lead to allegation of witch-hunting or reluctance to indict on the part of the FBI; thus, we must now hold our breath and wait patiently for the Attorney General’s report regarding the interview with the FBI of Hillary Clinton. In situation where the report appears subjective, the agency may be criticized for for not conducting a thorough job in the interrogation process; however, where the report points finger at compelling violation behavior that demands indictment, political parties may raise a red flag, with the possibility of the Republican party asking for an actionable decision to arrest the presumptive Democratic Nominee pending prosecution; and or, the Democratic party members shouting foul regarding erroneous rush to judgement of the G-Men in the interrogation of their party’s nominee.

The outcome of Hillary Clinton’s interview with the G-Men may further intensify solidarity among supporters of either party’s presidential presumptive nominee. In the cause of support for the brand of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, there is the possibility of intensive support by her PAC to help reconstruct public perception of the nature of her violation; and or, whitewash the indictment of their candidate of choice. Donald Trump’s supporters will be hard pressed to justify extended investigation involving a special counsel to look into the possible violation of Hillary Clinton of government policy, since their direct interest is probably not involved in this investigation. While Donald Trump’s supporters may introduce need for swift prosecution in case of an indictment, to help further or advance the chances of their party’s nominee, Hillary Clinton’s campaign may result to engaging a team of attorneys to draw out an extensive and extended litigation that will result in Hillary Clinton pleading the fifth to all the questions from the prosecutor and probable throwing out of the case before the general elections or after it. Whichever way it is; I can see Hillary Clinton walking out free from prosecution or responsibility for any possible indictment for executive negligence, gross abuse of privileges and powers from the FBI; including loss of security clearance for national secrets. This is not wishful thinking; it is just the way some violations that are borderline in judgement had been treated in some agencies, and in instances of government official’s violation; especially, where there were no clear cut policy statement preventing this purported violation. She may just be given a reprimand for any violation related to the issues raised in use of private email server for conducting government business?

Looking back at US State Department’s belated efforts to figure out if former Secretary Hillary Clinton was in violation of agency policy, and the general public interest in the possible violation of government policy in the use of private email servers for conducting government business, there were probably no fast and clear rules in existence when Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State; as you would have heard from the State Department Public Relations department once, most recently, saying the rules have been tightened up since the possible or erroneous violation by past US Secretaries of State including Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ultimately the penalty of violation will not be limited to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were effort made to bring her to book for possible violation. If the Attorney General is unable to indict based on report submitted to her by the FBI and recommendations of Senior State Department officials regarding policy violation, there is no need to look forward to any huge repercussions for the violation from the outcome of the G-Men interrogation of the former Secretary of State this weekend. In addition, a cavier of non prosecutable offenses regarding the use of private email servers for doing government business may be raised and justification not to proceed with prosecution affirmed with a line statement saying, yes, she screwed-up, the offenses were grave; but, they would be hard to prove in a court of law.

When an unindicted former US Secretary of State and Presumptive Democratic Party nominee begins to refocus her campaign away from the fallout from her interrogation by the G-Men, she is likely to proclaim the thoroughness of the FBI investigation and the ultimate profound judgement of the Attorney General not to indict in an instance that is probably borderline in possible violation of public policy in using private email servers for conducting government business. At the same time, American voters must have expected the former US Secretary of State to find a way out of the FBI maze of dead end questions seeking to implicate her during the interrogations. Anyone with common sense will do the same. At the same time, the G-Men are more likely to intensify their effort to indict, which may end up coming off, as victimization. Thus, both the G-Men and Hillary Clinton, have to be careful in the cat and mouse game being played at the interviewer or interrogation session. In justice just like in government investigations, the system is not built to indict erroneously; or implicate, out of hostilities from the prosecutor; or, a designed effort to implicate at all cost for suspected violation or erroneous behavior in conducting government official duties. Furthermore, an alleged behavioral violation may be met with the invocation of the fifth amendment to prevent implicating oneself in suspected erroneous judgement in an official capacity while conducting government business.

Finally, there is simply no concrete way to know if the former US Secretary of State was lecherously using her private email for conducting government business, or decided to use the private server for convenience of attending to urgent issues that needed her immediate attention when out of the office; since she is known to maintain a rigorous travel schedules across the globe conducting government business, in multiple time zones, when government servers may be down for maintenance without extended notification to users who are always on the go. The multiple of excuses are at the disposal of the former secretary of State; albeit the choice to always remain accountable for her action in effecting decision related to the responsibilities of her office. Without a realistic and concrete steadfast rule, regarding use of private emails in conducting government business, there is always going to be instances to accommodate extraneous use of alternative email servers in case of emergencies. Would an American Ambassador in Israel or Pakistan, bombed out by unexpected atrocities of terrorist groups, avoid conducting government businesses on a private email server if that was the only one available to effect urgent decision or Mayday call for help and rescue? Definitely No; that is why it is very difficult to prove licentious intentions of private email server use in all instances.

                                                                     Postcard circa 1880. U.S. Senate Historical Office