Lawmakers Asking Stupid Unanswerable Questions of Mueller

More proof that today’s Mueller hearing was less about an unprepared Mueller and more about questioners who could benefits from a lesson or ten in “How To Avoid Asking Stupid, Unanswerable Questions”.

In addition to asking Mueller (oral) questions that required him to recall various numbers ( warrants, subpoenas, …), let’s look at a type of painfully tortured question that every linguist is well acquainted with – the multiply embedded sentence

An embedded sentence is a complex one where a clause (a group of words that includes a subject and a verb) is embedded (stuck) into a main sentence – .

a sort of syntactic interruptous.

But first a personal moment. I spent many wild and crazy nights with my fellow grad students in the linguistics lab fiddling with impossibly long and incomprehensible“multiply embedded” sentence.

Simple example of an embedded sentence:

My dog, who is a terrier mix, has lots of energy.

Easy breezy. Who has lots of energy – My dog.

But there are endless comprehension experiments, and linguistics lab past time games that have fun with sentences that are far more embedded and far more difficult to understand.

Example of a very complex and confusing multiply embedded sentence:

The hat, worn by the man, with the grey hair, crossing the street, that lead to the bus station on the other side of town, and often impassable between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00, had gone missing in early morning.

Basic rule of asking good questions – don’t use complex multiply embedded sentences.

Now let’s look at the linguistic acrobatics that defined some of the impossibly tortured questions posed to Robert Mueller today.

—————————

(Transcript from Washington Post )

RATCLIFFE: All right.

Now, your report — and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?

MUELLER: Can you repeat the last part of that question?

RATCLIFFE: Yeah.

Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?

Can — let me make it easier. Is…

MUELLER: May — can I — I’m sorry, go ahead.

RATCLIFFE: … can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated…

And another

NADLER: Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Can you repeat the question, sir?

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could — the statement would be to — that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president — excuse me — cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.