The DOJ won't prosecute a prosecutor who sexually assaulted someone
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a surprising statement on Monday: it was declining to prosecute an assistant United States attorney for sexual assault, a finding it made despite concluding conclusively (or so it seems) that the attorney, while on a date, exposed his/her/its genitals to a "civilian" and forced that civilian to touch said exposed genitals. So what's going on here? Given the cagey language regarding the attorney's sex, I can't help but wonder whether the attorney is an "it" person who's being given a pass.
Finding of Misconduct by an Assistant United States Attorney for Indecent Exposure, Sexual Assault, and Lack of Candor
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information from the Executive Office for the United States Attorneys (EOUSA) alleging that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) had exposed the AUSA's genitals while in a public place and had sexually assaulted a civilian while on a date.
The OIG investigation found that the AUSA's genitals were exposed in public, and that the AUSA forced the civilian's hand to touch the AUSA's genitals, in violation of state law and federal regulations governing off-duty conduct. The OIG also found that the AUSA lacked candor in discussing this incident with the OIG.
Criminal prosecution of the AUSA was declined. The OIG has completed its investigation and provided its report to EOUSA and the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility for appropriate action.
* * *
Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Department of Justice personnel have committed misconduct.
That's pretty clear. An assistant U.S. attorney went on a date, and someone later filed a formal complaint claiming to have been on the receiving end of a sexual assault: exposure of and forced physical contact with someone's genitals. The OIG doesn't waffle about what happened: this conduct "was in violation of state law and federal regulations governing off-duty conduct." And yet, no prosecution...
It's possible that the DOJ is declining to prosecute because the state has filed a criminal action against the employee. But the bald facts don't indicate that this happened. Interestingly, the same investigation makes no mention of the assistant U.S. attorney getting fired, although that may well have happened.
What I find most fascinating, though, is the statement's flagrant effort to avoid identifying the sex of this U.S. attorney miscreant. The DOJ has around 5,800 U.S. attorneys working for it. Given the number of women in the legal profession as a whole, as well as the DOJ's aggressive diversity outreach, it's reasonable to believe that roughly half of these attorneys are women.
I mention this because it's not likely that the OIG withheld information about whether the person was male or female because doing so would make it too easy to identify that person. That is, it would matter if the OIG wrote that "his genitals were exposed in public" if there were only one or two men in that 5,800-person workforce. However, if there are going to be well over 2,000 men and well over 2,000 women, identifying the person's sex won't give the game away.
That leaves me wondering whether the OIG's careful (and successful) efforts to avoid identifying the attorney's sex arise because the attorney is an "it" person — that is, one who denies his biological sex, whether by claiming to be a member of the opposite sex, a person without a biological sex, or a person whose "gender identity" is something creative, like a frog. Presumably, there aren't that many frog-identified people in the DOJ. And, despite all the outreach, I'm betting that there still aren't that many so-called "transgender" or "non-binary" people, either.
And yes, I'm theorizing here, but it's come to the point at which I make a lot of assumptions about things on the leftist side of the aisle. For example, after I heard about the recent beheading in San Carlos, California, I instantly said, "I bet the killer is here illegally," and I was correct. I had the same correct response last year when another man beheaded his girlfriend.
There are patterns, and when I hear about a federal government employee engaged in illegal sexual behavior, and then I read an incredibly discreetly written government document that refuses to identify the person's sex and, despite acknowledging the criminal conduct, refuses to prosecute...well, I'm deeply suspicious that the government is giving a pass to someone in a protected class.