The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[YellowKing]

Now YK, we've been over this...

You're right. That was an insult to walruses.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

Good lord.

WTF?! This is ridiculous. She has no idea what treason means. This is just crazy talk.

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

Sometimes the best defense is a good...constant onslaught of bullshit.

[Isgrimnur]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

[LawBeefaroni]

It will be a happy day when I never have to look at that self-righteous walrus again.

Now YK, we've been over this...

I didn't think it possible, but she may have stolen the title of shitgoblin from her boss.

[Holman]

Is it possible that SS means that critics have *accused* Trump of something that is "punishable by death in this country"?

In other words, could she be saying "Look at their ridiculous accusations" rather than "They should be killed"?

[LawBeefaroni]

Is it possible that SS means that critics have *accused* Trump of something that is "punishable by death in this country"?

In other words, could she be saying "Look at their ridiculous accusations" rather than "They should be killed"?

Going by her history? No. Going by what she said? Still no.

She says, in this order, paraphrased, "what they are doing is equivalent to treason. Treason is punishable by death in this country." Leaving the base to connect the dot. Lock 'n load.

Agree that it could be parsed to mean, "they accused him of this thing that is equivalent to treason which is punishable by death. " But we all know this dog whistle Administration never means the least harmful interpretation.

And to clarify, so it doesn't sound merely flippant. She is priming all the way up to that statement: "Think how outrageous that is. Think what "they" are doing. "

[El Guapo]

Is it possible that SS means that critics have *accused* Trump of something that is "punishable by death in this country"?

In other words, could she be saying "Look at their ridiculous accusations" rather than "They should be killed"?

Going by her history? No. Going by what she said? Still no.

She says, in this order, paraphrased, "what they are doing is equivalent to treason. Treason is punishable by death in this country." Leaving the base to connect the dot. Lock 'n load.

Agree that it could be parsed to mean, "they accused him of this thing that is equivalent to treason which is punishable by death. " But we all know this dog whistle Administration never means the least harmful interpretation.

And to clarify, so it doesn't sound merely flippant. She is priming all the way up to that statement: "Think how outrageous that is. Think what "they" are doing. "

I disagree. Just going by her words:

"They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

The most natural reading to me is that the "that" is "being an agent for a foreign government" which is equivalent by treason, and punishable by death. They're accusing Trump of a capital offense.

That said, it is ambiguous, maybe intentionally.

[El Guapo]

That said, the more Trumpists spike the football here, the worse I think it may be in the long run *if* the Mueller report has information / details in it that are damaging (or if Barr is outright misrepresenting what's in the report, although that seems unlikely unless they are *super* confident that they can keep it confidential forever).

I guess the plan is to have Barr testify before the House, and then (I hope) potentially subpoena the report based upon what Barr says and any further summaries / redacted versions that get released in the meantime.

[Kurth]

Is it possible that SS means that critics have *accused* Trump of something that is "punishable by death in this country"?

In other words, could she be saying "Look at their ridiculous accusations" rather than "They should be killed"?

Yes. That's exactly what she is saying. I don't even think her statement is all that ambiguous, but in the midst of all the other ridiculous agitprop coming out of Fox and the administration, I can see why people would make that mistake.

[Holman]

Is there a reason why Pelosi (or Schiff, if a committee stance is needed) can't just subpoena the full report today? How does that work?

[Smoove_B]

She tossed out the verbal equivalent of "survey markers" and we're supposed to interpret how they look on a map of people being elected. If only there was some type of forum or public event where she could make these comments and members of the press could ask her for clarifications in real time.

[El Guapo]

Is there a reason why Pelosi (or Schiff, if a committee stance is needed) can't just subpoena the full report today? How does that work?

They can, and most likely will. Barr and DoJ will almost certainly argue that some or all of the report is privileged. Barr has said that some information in the report relates to grand jury materials and investigations underway (which is almost certainly true to at least some degree, given the spin-off investigations that are ongoing). The administration will probably make a fairly sweeping executive privilege type argument. Odds are the issue would wind up in court.

[Vorret]

What stops Mueller from giving the report to Congress? Why does it have to stop at the DOJ if DOJ is obviously compromised by his boner for Trump ?

[Smoove_B]

They can, and most likely will. Barr and DoJ will almost certainly argue that some or all of the report is privileged.

Yeah, I mean, this isn't the Ken Starr report on Clinton.

[Holman]

What stops Mueller from giving the report to Congress? Why does it have to stop at the DOJ if DOJ is obviously compromised by his boner for Trump ?

Mueller reports to Barr. In this case, literally.

There's some question about whether he would even leak details if he thought his work were being mischaracterized, as such leaks would violate DOJ rules.

[Vorret]

Ohh okay, it's kinda odd to me that a report on the administration is in the hand of someone selected by said administration, not sure how that makes sense in a legal point of view.

[El Guapo]

Ohh okay, it's kinda odd to me that a report on the administration is in the hand of someone selected by said administration, not sure how that makes sense in a legal point of view.

Yeah, and the special counsel rules specifically provide for that procedure - the special counsel sends the report to the AG, the AG makes a decision on what gets sent to Congress.

[Holman]

Ohh okay, it's kinda odd to me that a report on the administration is in the hand of someone selected by said administration, not sure how that makes sense in a legal point of view.

Yeah. The whole system is very poorly designed for investigating a president.

The Special Counsel is subordinate to the Attorney General, head of the DOJ. In theory--and according to traditional norms--the DOJ is independent of the POTUS' orders and influence, but the fact that the AG is a POTUS appointee makes those norms precarious. (But you knew that already, as now we all do.)

[LordMortis]

To the statement by the SS:

It's ambiguous because of descriptive grammar. Someone who speaks for a living to people who write for a living is

1) incompetent
2) knowingly being ambiguous

Take your pick


That said from a prescriptive perspective.

"They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

Phenomena described in a statement. The accusation.
Phenomena is defined by equivalency in a statement. That = Accusation = Treason.
Consequences of phenomena established in a statement. That = Treason = Death
...
Accusation = Death.

For *That* to be a subortinate clause of being a foreign agent, being a foriegn agant would have to be established the subject of the statement. Otherwise you have to establish to establish *that* is refering to a prepositional object, at which point it becomes a recurring referrent until changed by other grammar modifications.

Subect - Verb - Direct Object - Preposition - Prepostional phrase contianing the object of preposition.

We fought the law in good faith. That was our first mistake. That was our undoing.

Yes?

We fought the law in good faith. That was unfounded. That was our undoing

Yes?

The first tries to refer to the fight
The second tries to refer to good faith

The first works
The second fails.

Never mind.

[Holman]

Nah. The grammar doesn't do that.

"They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

That's equivalent to treason isn't a subordinate clause. It's independent. The "that" refers to the most recent significant noun, which is the gerund phrase "being an agent [etc]." The second "that" just repeats the first. (With a sloppy writer it could try to refer to "treason," but this wouldn't change the overall meaning of the statement.)

It's equivalent to "They accused me of killing the mailman. That's a felony. That gets you life in prison."

(The second "that" probably duplicates the first, but even if it refers to "a felony" the meaning is basically the same.)

[LordMortis]

My bad. Confused the use of that. reading...

That is pronoun and the antecedent is... not clear

https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/pro_antagree.htm

https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/proref.htm

See "Here is another example of faulty pronoun reference where a pronoun is asked to refer to a whole group of words instead of a clear, single noun antecedent."

http://www.chompchomp.com/rules/prorefrules.htm

see "Sometimes we sum up a complicated situation with a pronouncement like "That was really cool!" or "This blew our minds!" Or we might add as a tag to the end of a sentence, "Which amazed us all." Remember, though, that that, this, and which all require one clear antecedent. If too many things happened, your reader will get confused."

[El Guapo]

We also shouldn't lose sight of what Sanders (and the Trump administration) is mainly trying to do here, which is to use the Barr summary to further delegitimize the media, and to try to scare them away from looking more into the Russia-Trump connection.

[Skinypupy]

My guess is that Sanders' wording was very intentional. It was vague enough that they can clutch their pearls and scream "FAKE NEWS" when the rest of us have the natural "WTF?" reaction that we all had.

"That was not at all what we meant, and how dare you accuse us of making threatening statements!" ::wink and nod to Trump supporters::

[Vorret]

We also shouldn't lose sight of what Sanders (and the Trump administration) is mainly trying to do here, which is to use the Barr summary to further delegitimize the media, and to try to scare them away from looking more into the Russia-Trump connection.

Doubt that's gonna work, the left will still believe cnn/wapo and the right will still think foxnews is signing gospel, the division will simple widen even more.

[El Guapo]

We also shouldn't lose sight of what Sanders (and the Trump administration) is mainly trying to do here, which is to use the Barr summary to further delegitimize the media, and to try to scare them away from looking more into the Russia-Trump connection.

Doubt that's gonna work, the left will still believe cnn/wapo and the right will still think foxnews is signing gospel, the division will simple widen even more.

Well, the gold mine here would be convincing a few editors / owners at the WaPo / NYT / CNN that Russia is over, Trump is cleared, no need to do more digging on Russia, and the administration will try to bury you if you do any more on this, so don't devote investigative resources to it any more.

Beyond that, they still have to hold onto soft Trump voters from 2016 who might be receptive to this stuff.

[em2nought]

Still can't accept the election results? I figured as much.

[Alefroth]

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

I acknowledge the spirit of your comment and agree, but I take exception that this was a win/lose situation. It wasn't political, it wasn't a witchhunt and exonerated/not exonerated is not a win for one side or the other.

It was a much needed investigation based on significant probable cause. Letting anyone, Dems, GOP term this as a win/lose situation is unreasonable and absolutely unfair to the FBI and/or Mueller.

It was cops doing their jobs for the benefit and protection of the nation, whatever the outcome.

Feel free to substitute grown up governing or reconciling leadership for winning graciously.

[hepcat]

Still can't accept the election results? I figured as much.

No, we can't accept that our country is being run by a less intelligent version of Elmer Fudd....or that you folks were so easily conned.

[Isgrimnur]

Elmer Fudd, whatever his issues, at least struck me as a responsible gun owner. Trump is more of a Yosemite Sam.

[GreenGoo]

Nah. The grammar doesn't do that.

"They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."

That's equivalent to treason isn't a subordinate clause. It's independent. The "that" refers to the most recent significant noun, which is the gerund phrase "being an agent [etc]." The second "that" just repeats the first. (With a sloppy writer it could try to refer to "treason," but this wouldn't change the overall meaning of the statement.)

It's equivalent to "They accused me of killing the mailman. That's a felony. That gets you life in prison."

(The second "that" probably duplicates the first, but even if it refers to "a felony" the meaning is basically the same.)

I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not an English major.

The subject of the first sentence is the accusation. "That's" should be referencing the subject of the previous sentence, not the specifics of the accusation. I find your (well, other people have made it too) interpretation to be counter-intuitive, but that's fine, I don't do English in any real capacity.

[GreenGoo]

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

I acknowledge the spirit of your comment and agree

Feel free to substitute grown up governing or reconciling leadership for winning graciously.

See the first sentence I wrote.

[LordMortis]

Still can't accept the election results? I figured as much.

No, we can't accept that our country is being run by a less intelligent version of Elmer Fudd....or that you folks were so easily conned.

For me it's always been about the Mueller investigation. So now the only thing in the way is McConnell, go figure. I don't have to like the Mueller's finding but I trust them enough to accept them and work toward a better 2020. That said. they've already won. Mueller didn't push for indictment, so there is some faith all is not lost and we will recover and with that faith, it seems to fall short of tearing the country apart. The tyranny of the minority will continue at least until 2020 whereat we will work to change. In the mean time the wealthy looters will continue to loot and I will grow more resentful of the machinations of the US senate whose greed and corruption set this all in motions.

[hepcat]

Elmer Fudd, whatever his issues, at least struck me as a responsible gun owner. Trump is more of a Yosemite Sam.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Is there a reason why Pelosi (or Schiff, if a committee stance is needed) can't just subpoena the full report today? How does that work?

Or any reason one of the committees can't bring in Mueller himself to testify about the report?

[Isgrimnur]

Elmer Fudd, whatever his issues, at least struck me as a responsible gun owner. Trump is more of a Yosemite Sam.

[Alefroth]

Guess winning graciously is out of the question.

I acknowledge the spirit of your comment and agree

Feel free to substitute grown up governing or reconciling leadership for winning graciously.

See the first sentence I wrote.

I saw them all, I just wanted to provide choices you wouldn't have to take exception with.

[El Guapo]

Is there a reason why Pelosi (or Schiff, if a committee stance is needed) can't just subpoena the full report today? How does that work?

Or any reason one of the committees can't bring in Mueller himself to testify about the report?

Maybe. I'm sure that there would privilege arguments over that too, and a lot would depend upon Mueller's willingness to testify about this stuff (potentially over the objections of the administration).

Although if I were Pelosi or Schiff, I would *much* rather have the Mueller report itself. I'd be nervous about bringing Mueller in without knowing exactly what he's going to say, and I'm not sure how you would know what he's going to say without seeing some or all of the report first.

[GreenGoo]

I saw them all, I just wanted to provide choices you wouldn't have to take exception with.

Yeah, you're not understanding, or choosing it ignore my point.

First, I understand and agree with your point. I don't need options because I get what you were saying.

Second, I'm expressing my dissatisfaction with anyone, Dem, GOP, media talking head, internet personality, whoever, discussing the report in win/lose terms. Your post seemed like a pretty good place to express that dissatisfaction. I wasn't speaking directly to you, I was speaking to the idea.

That's it.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Doesn't matter. It's bugging me, that's all.

It's equivalent to "They accused me of killing the mailman. That's a felony. That gets you life in prison."

See, this annoys me. We already know that accusations aren't a felony, but that killing people is. We automatically know what is being referred to in the second sentence.

What if someone said this:

"They slandered me when they said I killed the mailman. That's a travesty. That's against the law".

What is the "that's" referring to in the second sentence? Or the third?

[em2nought]

For me it's always been about the Mueller investigation. So now the only thing in the way is McConnell, go figure.

I imagine it wasn't only the DNC and HRC doing underhanded things to keep Trump out of office. Swamp monsters on both sides you see.