If you parse the sentence, .....innocent people that is the stain.... makes no sense. It does not imply anyting.
Why cant he get the sentence right the first time? Better to write ...targeting innocent people and this is a stain...
If Gommert's peeps think this flies they need to find new jobs. The first sentence is incoherent and makes Gommert sound like a dufus. It opens a valid line of attack from the left that Gommert is a numbskull dufus. This is a totally avoidable piece of flack that should have never been allowed to occur.
If you parse the sentence, .....innocent people that is the stain.... makes no sense. It does not imply anyting. Why cant he get the sentence right the first time? Better to write ...targeting innocent people and this is a stain...
30-year professional bilingual copy editor here: The sentence is crystal-clear!
Regards,
Mueller, is that you?
Maybe RosenWeasel.
Or some other #NeverTrumper?
And if you parse the sentence correctly it makes perfect sense. “That is a stain” modifies “long and sordid history” which any non-troll would get immediately.
Dittos to alexander_busek, Paladin2, and AndyJackson ... Being ‘Old school’ taught, I fully understand him as he wrote it. a chilling read, too.
Exactly correct. A report this important should have been constructed with the utmost care to grammar, punctuation, syntax, structure, formatting, etc. Instead, it reads like something a basement blogger would write.
I love Louie, but he and his staff just failed at a fundamental level. His report will be torn apart in the press and hooted off the stage.
A few commas might make the sentence understandable:
Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history, of illicitly targeting innocent people, that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence.
35-year attorney here. The sentence makes perfect sense.
If you parse the sentence, .....innocent people that is the stain.... makes no sense. It does not imply anyting.
I failed English three times in high school, but let me take a crack at this. I think everything is modifying the object of the sentence history.
Robert Mueller has a history
-of illicitly targeting innocent people
-that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence.
-(it is) long and sordid
I think if the stain part of the sentence was supposed to modify people and not history, then it would have to be who are instead of that is.
So the sentence structure seems correct to me. But again, I have a history of failure.
Read some classics. When you get through 20,000 leagues under the sea, you’ll be able to read long sentences such as this one just fine.
Not just you, also others questioning the sentence structure, WHAT ABOUT THE CONTENT, MORONS!
“Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence.”
Let me fix it so you morons can understand it.
Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people.
This is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence.
WOW!!!!!! I can really understand it now! /s
(don’t flame me, I don’t read responses, you’ll be wasting your time.)