Grilled on Russia probe, deputy attorney general pick sidesteps Democrats calls for special prosecu

[briv1016]

Source: Washington Post.

Under insistent questioning from Democrats, deputy attorney general nominee Rod J. Rosenstein refused to commit Tuesday to appoint a special counsel to oversee investigations of Russian meddling in the presidential election — though he stressed that he did not yet know the facts of the matter.

At a tense Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that lasted more than 3 1/2 hours, Rosenstein said that he was “not aware” of any reason he would not be able to supervise such probes.

“You view it as an issue of principle, that I need to commit to appoint a special counsel in a matter that I don’t even know if it’s being investigated,” he told Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who had vowed to try to block his nomination should he not make such a commitment. “And I view it as an issue of principle that as a nominee for deputy attorney general, I should not be promising to take action on a particular case.”

Rosenstein is a respected prosecutor who has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. But on Tuesday, Democrats and Republicans essentially turned him into a lightning rod, pressing him for answers on how he would handle any probes of Russian meddling in the U.S. election or Trump associates.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-begins-confirmation-hearing-for-nominee-to-be-deputy-attorney-general/2017/03/07/4bd4ae02-02b2-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.326f697082f5

---

So there goes any hope of a special prosecutor.

[Juliusseizure]

1. Why isn't Dana Boente appointing one?

As the well coached Rosenstein said, current interim deputy attorney general can appoint one.

I wonder if that's something he's considering? He was knee deep in HC's private server investigation/distraction, and this one could actually be more important. (Pardon the sarcasm).

[ColemanMaskell]

9. Good point (imho). btw, like the name, Juliusseizure :-)

Good thinking (on both points).

Thanks for sharing insights & information. Five posts you have, at the moment, hunh? (Newbie-er than me, even) . . . Welcome, on behalf of, uh, so far, me apparently. That's okay, time will tell . . .

Sarcasm? What sarcasm? Sounded okay to me. Or maybe you mean, "colorful metaphor"? Uh, lotta that around here from what little I've seen so far . . .

Yeah, if she knows what's going on, why hasn't she done it? Does she know something I don't? What are - - - Are you trying to trick me into some kind of commitment? (On the first, uh, date?) Guess he's not that kind of guy

[George II]

2. I want to see this fucker and the rest of the dangle in front of a committee for 11 hours....

....like they made Clinton dangle.

She came out of it stronger while they'll come out of whining and sniveling.

[red dog 1]

3. Kick for exposure!

I agree with Dianne Feinstein:
"There is a real danger, I believe, that the Justice Department could become politicized."

Imo, one way to avoid that possibility is for Rosenstein, after he's confirmed, to appoint a special prosecutor.

[ColemanMaskell]

7. +1

After (if) he's appointed, that sounds most likely right

[red dog 1]

8. "If" he's appointed?

How could the Dems possibly keep him from being appointed?

The Rethugs control both houses of Congress....He WILL be appointed, imo.

[red dog 1]

11. I think saying he "shall" is incorrect English grammar.

It's been a long time since my college days, but I'm pretty sure that "shall" is used only in the first person, such as "I shall" or "We shall" (overcome?)

He will, she will, they will etc. is the correct grammar, I think.

As far as my using all caps.( "He WILL be appointed&quot
I do that a lot, (possibly too much)

[ColemanMaskell]

12. It's nuanced - - American vs Brithsh usage, Living (evolving) language, and all that

Traditional (British English) shall and will are odd, from the straightforward American point of view.
The difficulty lies in the fact that two factors are involved: 1st person vs 3rd person, plus intent (or emphasis).

Why I would enter into this discussion in a political forum, the shade of my 8th grade English teacher might know

If, in the first person (I) one says "I will", then one expresses definite intent. As if saying "I definitely will".

If one says "I shall", then one is only stating that this is the most likely outcome -- in modern American usage, this is equivalent to saying "I probably will", but shorter to say. However, this is currently, to some extent, being overridden by the modern invention of ALL CAPS for emphasis.

When one uses "will" or "shall" in the third (or 2nd) person, the meaning is almost reversed from 1st person. Saying "He shall" implies definiteness, as if announcing an edict that he'd better; He bloody well SHALL do this, or we'll see about that! Whereas saying "He will" is the milder likelier-than-not form. He will if he feels like it, but it's not my problem to make him do it.

Traditional joke, substitute "American" for "Scotsman" to modernize it: Did you hear about the Scotsman who drowned? He fell over from -- a bridge in London -- and bystanders were about to dive in to save him, but he was heard to shout, "I WILL die, and no one SHALL save me". This was interpreted generally as meaning that it was his intent to die, and he was forbidding anyone to rescue him, that is, it was a suicide; hence he drowned on account of his limited comprehension of English usage. It might seem silly as a joke, but it's good for remembering the meanings.

All caps serves perfectly well to convey the subtlety of meaning as long as one is dealing with the written word.

We shall overcome, being 1st person, implies hopefulness, not intent. The singer prays that we shall, but does not express it as definite intent, being of course unable to guarantee the outcome.

Shall I? similarly implies that the outcome is indefinite. "So you SHALL!" is a command, and would be even without the caps.

But that's all what is called "prescriptive", which is to say, language by the rules. Another approach is called "descriptive", that is, usage: Language means whatever people think it means. Living language. It changes.

Traditionally, in writing, especially formal writing, one relied on "prescriptive" rules, so that the written word could be equally understood anywhere the four winds carried it. Nowadays not so much followed, that approach. Electronic media has changed, and is changing, our use of language. The immediacy of now.

Anyway the purpose of language is to communicate, and on an American political forum using written language, all caps is a perfectly good way to communicate emphasis; pedantic if I were to insist otherwise.

Please, carry on with that as you will . . .

[red dog 1]

15. Since I went to American schools, all my English classes were American

and, in America, "shall" is restricted to 1st person usage only.

[ColemanMaskell]

16. Yeah. I learned all that in 8th grade English in Virginia

I'm sure I would not have mentioned the grammar aspect if you had not brought it up; in fact you also asserted an odd idea of the general rule, and also expressed uncertainty about it.

Doesn't matter much as long as people understand what you intended to communicate.

[red dog 1]

17. "You also asserted an odd idea of the general rule"??

What "odd idea of the general rule" are you referring to?

The word "shall" is only to be used in the first person, as in "I shall" or "We shall"

(From your comment # 12)
Saying "He shall" implies definiteness, as if announcing an edict that he'd better; He bloody well SHALL do this, or we'll see about that! Whereas saying "He will" is the milder likelier-than-not form. He will if he feels like it etc.

No, that's not true.
Saying "He SHALL" does not imply "definiteness"
Saying "He shall" implies that, for whatever reason, you are not using proper English grammar.
"He will" is the correct usage, not "He shall"

Unless you find proper English grammar "odd", there is nothing "odd" about it.

"Doesn't matter much as long as people understand what you intended to communicate."?

I don't think so.

In my opinion, using proper English grammar matters a lot!

[ColemanMaskell]

18. Have you looked in a grammar book ? This is old stuff, if you look it up

The foundation of "will" as a verb is based on the same thinking as the noun "will".

"Shall", like "should", is based on the idea of conditionality.

The basic idea is that you can speak for yourself definitely, hence "I will". But when you talk about someone else's will, you're basically guessing. Hence "He will" lacks the definiteness.

"Shall" is the exact opposite.

"Should" and "would" are related to "Shall" and "Will".

I don't know what school you attended or what book they used there, but if you are sincere in your statement that you think English grammar matters a lot, look it up.

[ColemanMaskell]

13. footnote?

Sorry to notice you had replied to my earlier reply prior to my deleting it. Didn't mean to leave your response hanging there. I had entered some sort of ill-advised response to your original use of capitalized WILL, and immediately thought better of it, but not quickly enough apparently. Didn't mean to leave you hanging there looking as if you were responding to nothing. Close enough to nothing, but not quite.

[red dog 1]

14. No problem!

I saw that you had deleted the reply; but I posted my own reply anyway.

[riversedge]

4. Kand REC

[pat_k]

5. "he stressed that he did not yet know the facts of the matter." WTF!??!

WTF is wrong with these people!?! A 3 1/2 hour hearing with a guy who tells you he does not know the facts of the matter??

The moment Rosenstein told them he didn't know the facts. SOMEBODY on the Committee should have said.

"OK, I move to adjourn and reconvene in a week to give you time to get up to speed. I'm shocked that you didn't acquaint yourself with the facts in preparation for your appearance, but so be it. Until you know the facts it's pointless to continue this hearing.

[ColemanMaskell]

6. The (complete) facts may not be available to him, since he is not yet appointed . . . ?

Surely the DOJ does not make public everything they know about a case under investigation?

Some data is probably fairly closely-held from others?

We can't know Rosenstein's motives, but he might just be as he presents himself -- unwilling to make a commitment that would be a mistake to anyone who knew all the facts, which he cannot access prior to being appointed.

I have no opinion on Rosenstein, but surely it's possible he doesn't have all the information and he's just, well, what used to be called "honest to a fault" when it was a more commonplace trait.

Just sayin'. Leap to judgement anyone?