Of Mottos, the Inspector General’s Report and Res Ipsa Loquitur

“IT DOES NOT FOLLOW”

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2018

(Jun. 20, 2018) — Readers of your humble servant’s prior posts here at The P&E regarding the presidential eligibility issue will recall a Latin legal term frequently used to describe the fragile intellectual foundations of the claim that, for example, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated under the Constitution.  That term is: ipse dixit, translating essentially to “it is so because I say it is so.”

Ipse dixit can take many forms, both verbal as well as visual.  For example, one can say in a press conference: “I was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and thus I am eligible to be President.”  Or one can post to the Internet an image of one’s purported birth certificate from the Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, and claim the same thing: “This proves that I am constitutionally eligible because I say I am constitutionally eligible.”

There is another Latin legal term which now becomes relevant following the release of the long-awaited Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on the Justice Department’s and FBI’s handling of the “investigation” into the “matter” of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling (and destruction by hammers and BleachBit) of e-mails and top secret documents while “serving” as Secretary of State under Monsieur Obama.  That term is “res ipsa loquitur,” translating as “the thing speaks for itself.”

While the 568-page report details myriad defalcations and manifest examples of pro-Clinton and openly hostile anti-Trump animus and bias, the Inspector General concludes (at p. 263, for interested readers) that the review found “no evidence that the conclusions by Department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Seriously… seriously?

The only way this conclusion makes any sense at all is if one focuses only on the “past practices” of the Department of Justice, operating purportedly through James Comey as an ersatz “prosecutor,” in, for but one example, drafting an exoneration statement for Hillary (“Dead Womyn Walking”) Clinton well prior to the conclusion of the investigation or even interviewing her… and then, not even under oath.  Never mind that such “past practice” makes a complete mockery of the rule of law and eviscerates the mottos of both the Department of Justice – “Who Prosecutes on Behalf of Justice” – and the FBI – “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.”

The ironic motto of the Office of the Inspector General is “Oversight, Integrity, Guidance,” a claim that now rings almost as hollow as the vessel of Hillary Clinton’s character.  For people so obsessed over “integrity,” their actions seem most curious.  Viewed against the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the Inspector General’s conclusion conjures up yet another Latin maxim: “non sequitur,” meaning “it does not follow.”   The report speaks for itself, and those who fail to listen to what it says do so at their own peril.

One person who has listened to what it says – as opposed to what the Democrats claim it says – is the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Congressman Trey Gowdy.  He slammed the serial, palpable examples of bias and anti-Trump animus at the higher echelons of the FBI, including disgraced former Director James Comey and his co-conspirator enablers.

One of the prime nuggets of information coming out of the Inspector General’s report is the confirmation that James Comey improperly and insubordinately took it upon himself to step into the shoes of then-feckless Attorney General Loretta (“Say,-Bill-How-Are-The-Grandkids-And-Your-Golf-Game-Doing?”) Lynch and declare that Clinton would not be prosecuted for the serial felonies for which “regular” Americans would (and did) go to prison.

The report confirms that the FBI, as the “investigative” branch of the Justice Department, does not make “charging decisions.”  Those decisions are made by the head of the Justice Department, the Attorney General.  While some might suggest that the Phoenix tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch was purely coincidental, at the end of the day, Lynch’s “recusal” from making any decisions relating to the FBI’s “investigation” of Hillary Clinton’s felonious e-mail, iPhone and BleachBit activities opened the door for someone else to exonerate her.

In the normal course of events, that would be her Deputy Attorney General, at that time, one Sally Yates.  You remember her, yes?  She’s the one who President Trump fired for instructing Justice Department lawyers to “stand down” in any defense of President Trump’s Executive Order banning travelers from certain terrorist-harboring countries…, oh, and did I mention, countries previously identified as such by… wait for it… wait for it… Monsieur Obama?

But nooooooo…., getting back to James Comey, following Lynch’s recusal, he decided that the time was right to insulate Clinton from the nuisance of criminal prosecution as she navigated her way to the Oval Office.  Thus, “taking matters into his own hands,” he declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against her.  Ipse dixit. 

This illegal and “insubordinate” action of the then-Director of the FBI constituted… let us say it together… the usurpation of the office of the Attorney General of the United States.  Not unlike the usurpation of the presidency by the guy who appointed Comey head of the FBI in the first place: Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., Comey might have thought: “Hey, the guy from Hawaii got away with the biggest usurpation of all, so why can’t I give it a shot?”

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… the swamp encircled by the I-495 Beltway is far deeper, corrupt and venomous than even Donald Trump ever imagined.  Memo to President Trump (“Tweeting” has become so passé): talk to Sessions about hanging it up; then go talk to Gowdy about enlisting him to help you drain the swamp.