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
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
Postcard circa 1880. U.S. Senate Historical Office
No comments:
Post a Comment