- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Generally speaking, attorneys (prosecutors anyway) rarely use the passive voice in their charging documents. They don't because charging documents' purpose is to identify who did what, to whom and when/in what order. The passive voice pales when used in such documents because generally, it doesn't identify the actor.
Prosecutors aren't alone in eschewing the passive voice. Process designers, especially those who design processes that have both human and technology actors, refrain from using the passive voice. Also, humanities professors and high school AP English teachers almost unanimously abhor the passive voice.
Indeed, when I was in high school and college, each use of the passive voice, except when there was a fitting reason to do so, resulted in a one point deduction from a paper/essay. Since ours was a seven-point scale, it didn't take many instances of passive voice to cost one a letter grade or a grade modifier. Why? Because teachers/professors evaluated everything in the prose we submitted.
Bob Mueller's indictment of Roger Stone uncharacteristically contains several passive voice statements. The irregularity of his doing so has led careful observers/readers to consider why. The most "Occhamite" reason is that he deliberately demurred from naming the actor who's been left unidentified by the passive voice statements. Insofar as that's the most straightforward reason for using the passive in the charging document, the natural question to ask is "why did he?"
Well, for me the answer is that the unnamed actor is someone who has yet to be indicted and so as not to have the DoJ directly impugn that person's presumption of innocence, Mueller composed the statements in the passive voice.
The next question to ask is this: "Did Mueller deliberately shield the actor or was he required to do so by the Deputy AG or Acting AG?" I haven't any idea. I know that in prior indictments, the DoJ hasn't troubled itself with doing so. To wit, Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen matter. It could be that the current DoJ "muckety mucks" didn't want to have Trump be so for a second time.
Prosecutors aren't alone in eschewing the passive voice. Process designers, especially those who design processes that have both human and technology actors, refrain from using the passive voice. Also, humanities professors and high school AP English teachers almost unanimously abhor the passive voice.
Indeed, when I was in high school and college, each use of the passive voice, except when there was a fitting reason to do so, resulted in a one point deduction from a paper/essay. Since ours was a seven-point scale, it didn't take many instances of passive voice to cost one a letter grade or a grade modifier. Why? Because teachers/professors evaluated everything in the prose we submitted.
Bob Mueller's indictment of Roger Stone uncharacteristically contains several passive voice statements. The irregularity of his doing so has led careful observers/readers to consider why. The most "Occhamite" reason is that he deliberately demurred from naming the actor who's been left unidentified by the passive voice statements. Insofar as that's the most straightforward reason for using the passive in the charging document, the natural question to ask is "why did he?"
Well, for me the answer is that the unnamed actor is someone who has yet to be indicted and so as not to have the DoJ directly impugn that person's presumption of innocence, Mueller composed the statements in the passive voice.
The next question to ask is this: "Did Mueller deliberately shield the actor or was he required to do so by the Deputy AG or Acting AG?" I haven't any idea. I know that in prior indictments, the DoJ hasn't troubled itself with doing so. To wit, Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen matter. It could be that the current DoJ "muckety mucks" didn't want to have Trump be so for a second time.