I am reminded of King Henry the second of England, who famously uttered "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
This led to the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While it was not expressed as an order, it caused four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket.
Direct orders, clear quid pro quos are not necessary. The simple expression of a wish is all that is necessary to be interpreted as a command and carried out by subordinates. Most of the time direct orders and clear commands are not desired anyway - isn't it just so much more satisfying and powerful to have every vague wish simply carried out?
This is how despots operate. This is how mafia dons and organized crime syndicates operate.
This is how Trump operates.
12
Whatever the final determination on "quid pro quo" (Prof. Pinker makes the already obvious case even more so), at the very least Trump engages in a "hard sell" soliciting Ukrainian help.
Around 1996, I was unemployed yet shopping for a cheap but decent piano, thinking used, that I could use to keep my skills/knowledge up while (hopefully) giving lessons. Reliant on public transportation, I told a manager at a Baldwin store I'd stop in to see what he had, but needed to leave by a certain time to make a train. "Don't worry about it," he said. "My guy will drive you to the station."
I looked at his pianos, but realized they were over my budget, especially for their quality & condition. I asked the manager about that lift he'd promised me (scheduled departure was unpleasantly close). "In just a minute," he responded. "He's tied up for the moment, but we'll get you there."
"How did you like the piano? I can shave off $75." ... "Why don't you sign the papers as long as you're here, and made the trip. We can always cancel it if you change your mind."
I felt I was being extorted: no signature, no ride to the station. Fortunately I had the presence of mind to say "I'm sure you wouldn't want me to feel uncomfortable." With that, he smirked in acknowledgement he had no countermove to that, and signaled his assistant to drive me. But I'll never forget an Asian family there at a salesman's desk, frowning, bewildered, looking like they were in the clutches of the mob...
3
Classic "Read Between the Lines". Today Trump said "people don't know how I can handle it--I sort of thrive on it". Addicted to it(chaos)-wouldn't you say-like a personality disorder--
3
Interesting essay, sir, for those who may like searching for truth in the linguistic weeds. I'll praise it as you desire, but I'd like you to do me a favor though. The Oxford Universal Dictionary states that 'though' "introduces an additional statement restricting or modifying the preceding one: and yet, but yet, but still, however..." Commenters and spokespersons report that Pres Zelensky said that Ukraine was "almost ready" to purchase US military equipment and Trump immediately said, "Do me a favor, though". "THOUGH" is the word to be emphasized, linking to the "preceding" statement about receiving military aid and meaning "and yet, however, never-the-less". It asserts, Here's a related condition, a favor: investigate the DNC conspiracy and Biden by contacting Giuliani and AG Barr. "Though" establishes the quid pro quo. It's evidence of the direct connection between Zelenski's last words, "[W]e're almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes", and Trump's reply, "I would like you to do us a favor though..." So thus it reads, "[You] are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes; I would like you to do us a favor though." All who appreciate simplicity and clarity of facts- which move public opinion- need to memorize and state this 'linguistic' fact: this is what was said. Then repeat it!
6
“...The common-sense interpretation of his conversation makes it impossible for him to maintain, “I did not have quid pro quo relations with that man, Mr. Zelensky.”...”
Oh, don’t worry, maintain it he will, and his base will believe him and turn out in droves to vote him into the White Office for his second 4 years as President. What the general electorate lacks in smarts and education, they do not make up for with common sense. This impeachment process is going to land with an even louder thud than the Mueller Report. There will be no conviction in the Senate, and Trump will be re-elected in 2020. Watching the Democrats blow this election willingly and with enthousiasm is extremely painful to bear.
6
The Trump defenders who comment on here are truly over the top with their logic.
Remember, Trump also had lots of evidence that President Obama was born in Kenya. Ergo, if Michelle Obama decides to run against Trump, and Trump told the Kenyan leader that he expected "a favor" and that favor was for his country to begin investigating the "crime" of hiding Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, those who post on here defending Trump would insist that was perfectly legal.
Why is Dr. Steven Pinker parsing some words in an "edited" transcript to offer up the possibility that demanding that a foreign country do "a favor" and investigate a political rival could possibly be legal?
By the way, some people say that Dr. Pinker had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Ergo, Trump has every right to demand "a favor" from Harvard if they expect to get any more federal aid. And that "favor" is to investigate Dr. Pinker's ties to Epstein.
I hear that Republicans think this is all perfectly legal!
Trump's Mafia mannerisms have been clear since he asked James Comey for "loyalty."
Comey, a former Mafia prosecutor, understood him completely and prevaricated judiciously. Which got him promptly fired and denounced as a "nut case." Quid pro quo.
Zelensky, in contrast, did not waste any time in falling over himself in kowtowing.
2
Trump wouldn't even know what a quid pro quo is if it slapped him in the face....
1
Any woman knows this kind of innuendo, as in “You want a promotion; well, I have a favor to ask, though”. We’ve all been there in one way or another.
3
He knows what he said and what he meant. It is typical "mob boss" lingo, something Trump is very good at.
4
A waste of time and effort by Pinker. For anyone with a modicum of common sense, a linguistic dissection of Trump's phone call to Zelenksy isn't necessary to understand what he was implying. Trump the Don was clearly saying "Wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to your...?"
2
Pinker's analysis is correct. indirect solicitations are real solicitations. in this case, the word "though" seals the deal. This is why House minority leader Kevin McCarthy startled when it was presented to him by John Harwood on 60 Minutes. McCarthy instinctively knew that this would constitute a solicitation and went so far as to suggest that Harwood had falsely added the word (which he had not--it was in the transcript). Trump is flat-out guilty, and his guilt does not hang on this one sentence. This conversation was just the tip of the iceberg--the culmination of six-month of concerted effort to co-opt the Ukranians into aiding the Trump campaign
5
Trump seems to be a master of innuendo and prevarication, which is probably what makes him such a powerful communicator (at least for his base), and it also allows him and his supporters to insist that others over-read him, under-read him, or read him in bad faith. Unfortunately, as Prof. Pinker's final sentence reminds us, Trump is not the first politician guilty of using language to obfuscate. An educated electorate, however, isn't easily misled, and this piece provides some great schooling. Thank you Prof. Pinker and NYT.
3
@AG...and what makes you think we have “an educated electorate”? If that were actually true, I might be able to sleep at night.
4
Not a critique of this column. Just have to say, best last sentence I've read in ages. This essay is right and also correct.
4
Thanks for the analysis of the non-verbatim transcript.
Like you say it is pretty damming to have this discussion flow from we are friend, you need me, we are doing you a favor, you expect some reciprocity, by the way could you announce you are investigating my likely opponent in 2020 for bribery...(though you may thing paying for the weapon is enough reciprocity).
Sadly enough, there is almost more noise about Biden son get rich out of your dads name than the clear violation of norm and corruption displayed by Trump.
The irony is that Trumps kids are so deep into trying to bank on their last name (it started before D. Trump was president and developed a brand) including their influence in setting US policy.
Talk about throwing rocks in a house made out of glass.
6
If I say to a student of mine "you might consider doing x," they properly understand this as an order. Power imbalances matter to interpreting speech.
11
Thank you for this clear explanation.
May I add one thing? There is always an implicit degree of coercion when a more powerful country asks a favor of a less powerful one. In that light, when a United States president asks for a personal favor from a foreign leader, he or she is always trading public assets or office prerogatives for private political or other gains. That is a violation of the Constitution which explicitly categorizes such things as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
91
I consider it an insult to my intelligence for someone to try and convince me that there is nothing to this conversation.
It is fully loaded on both sides. Interesting to note that rather than have someone do the dirty "ask" on his behalf, Trump came right out and said the words Joe Biden.
He was desperate for Ukraine to announce that they would open these investigations, (see text transcripts) which would have given it some cover of legitimacy. This whole business has been cooking for months and there is a maze of players (enter Rick Perry) many of whom were looking out for their crony's. There were also oil prospects, political payback and coercion being leveraged on a fragile new President. We are now unveiling the administration's attempts to introduce some fresh corruption into Ukraine. It is more than enough.
54
When Trump says something literally incriminating, we are told to listen to the non-literaral meaning. When he says something non-literally incriminating, we are told to listen to his literal meaning. Apparently we will need to wait until he makes a statement that is both literally and non-literally incriminating.
145
Top comment of the day.
14
What is unknown is what Turkey might do in exchange for Trump's betrayal of the Kurds. Deliver photoshopped pictures of the Bidens?
2
A linguist's guide to quid pro quo should surely include analysis of what might be expected of a famous cognitive scientist in return for becoming pals with Jeffrey Epstein. Conferring legitimacy to a serial child abuser and sexual predator woul seem to be a pretty big quid. Seriously, why is the Times inviting commentary from Steven Pinker?
8
Richard M. Nixon must be gyrating furiously in his grave. He left the presidency without an all out, pitched constitutional fight that Trump is determined to wage. Putting nausea aside, Nixon appears to be a more moral person than the current incumbent. He certainly was more patriotic: I can't imagine him asking Mao Zedong to help out in a US election.
3
@TK
In order to enhance their physical appearance, ruling class women in 18th century Spain would sport a Capuchin monkey festooned upon a shoulder. The monkey was dressed in an elaborate gown identical to the one in which its mistress was garbed. Next to the monkey, every woman became beautiful. Donald Trump is the Capuchin monkey on the shoulder of all of his predecessors.
2
Actually, Nixon did ask the South Vietnamese leaders for a favor in 1968: to sabotage President Johnson's Paris peace talks in exchange for better conditions under his administration.
Johnson was informed by the FBI about Nixon's illegal interference but decided that this was too politically problematic to prosecute during the election campaign (he wasn't up for reelection anyway).
Johnson's unwillingness to (legitimately) use the powers of his office against a political opponent ultimately gave us Watergate!
I'm sorry but there's no way Trump even knows what quid pro quo even means. The quote from Gordon Sondland that Trump insisted "[The President] has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind." in his request for Biden investigations is pure fiction. Trump wouldn't even recognize E Pluribus Unum mush less quid pro quo. Sondland is clearly providing political cover.
4
Oh, sorry, I think you got the wrong bio? Unless we're talking about different Steven Pinkers this one should read "Steven Pinker is a professional alt-right apologist and was a friend of Jeffery Epstein who served as an expert witness for the defense in Epstein's 2006 trial."
Oh, what's that Steve? Here comes the outrage culture, you don't know the context, there's no room for nuance on the internet? Maybe if you practiced some of the magnanimity you're preaching you wouldn't have decided that the best way to shill your book on the Enlightenment was to mire yourself in the pits that is the (ugh) "intellectual dark web." I'm sure seeing your idea that "actually, everything is fine!" completely fail to resonate with anyone wasn't a good feeling but maybe you bare some responsibility for how you responded to that feeling, hmm? Sit in a corner and think about what you've done.
4
Wrong.
"Quid pro quo" suggest a symmetry between the quid and the pro, a fair and equal trade "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."
There was nothing remotely symmetric about military aid that was desperately needed on one side and manufactured dirt on a political opponent that was wanted on the other.
What Mr. Trump attempted was extortion: "You scratch my back, I'll take the knife out of yours."
Why do journalists persist in casting his despicable behavior in the most flattering possible light?
3
Notwithstanding all of Republican attempts at obfuscation, one does not have to have a PHD or be a linguist to understand that there was a quid pro quo for Ukraine’s investigation of the Bidens in Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukraine’s leader. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply being disingenuous and dishonest.
7
The professor may notionally be a cognitive scientist, but he is not a lawyer (but perhaps a mind-reader) and of more relevance to his assertions, is rather an obvious ideologue-- his political authority of no qualitative variance than the proverbial (Buckleyan) random name in the Boston residential phone book. He thereby commits cognitive psychology's most fundamental errors in judgment, including heuristic bias and even base logical fallacy. Whatever his credentials, this article underscores why parents and alumnae across the country are having reservations as to the intellectual fidelity and professional accountability to student cognitive development standards, by the academy. This essay could be used in a textbook chapter on judgmental frailty and hermeneutic risks, when under environmental social hysteria. His essay is also an effective encyclopedia of clinical cognitive biases including anchoring, bandwagon effect, clustering illusion, Dunning-Kruger, recency bias and focusing effect, illusory correlation, expectancy effect, Semmelweis reflex and reactive devaluation among a dozen more. He is also trading on his academic credentials to advance a special interest agenda, which is another unfortunate flaw in conformity to academic standards. Coming as he does from Harvard in his cultural and scholastic indoctrination, this may be understandable. Perhaps he might seek to trade in his Ph.D for a real one from the University of Chicago. Regards.
2
Aside from calling Pinker names and providing an irrelevant list of cognitive theories you apparently don't like, what actual critique of Pinker's solid analysis have you provided? I don't see a single valid refuatation, and my degree is from U. Chicago, and I am a linguist.
4
It would be helpful to analyze the innuendos of the written transcript if one were also privy to hearing the actual conversation and translators' words as well as watching the body language between Trump and Zelensky. We will only be afforded those insights into the conversation through the interpretations of those present. Unfortunately there isn't a publically available tape nor video between the two leaders for us to opine as to whether or not it was such a "perfectly" innocent conversation without any intention of quid pro quo.
The televised press conference at the U.N. between Trump and Zelensky after the phone call reveals so much more through their tones of voice, gestures, posture, and credulity of what both they are saying. Trump comes across as the strongman, smiling smugly and seeming to encourage Zelensky to say what he wants him to say. The seemingly naive, nervous and fawning Ukrainian appeases him with adulation and gratitude for just being in the great leader's presence. Reviewing this video speaks volumes.
In the meantime, the question of quid pro quo in the White House call will remain contested until the version of the call through the "eyes and ears" of the whistleblower with "first hand" knowledge is revealed. His or her word will go beyond the written transcript to uncover the truth.
1
Anybody who has ever been in business, especially sales, recognizes these tactics. And they're not just limited to business.
Recently watched the excellent movie, Spotlight, about the Boston Globe's investigation of child abuse in Boston's Catholic churches. In several scenes, Catholic poo-bahs and sycophants subtly and not-so-subtly put the squeeze on the Globe's investigators and executives, trying to kill/influence the investigation. Many veiled threats and hints at enticements and "compromises". Same tactics - twisting arms while wearing velvet gloves.
1
As a fellow linguist I'm happy to see this piece by Pinker; it's about time one of us stepped up to the plate! And it would have been easy to do; even an undergraduate linguistics major could have done the same.
I had to chuckle, though, when Pinker made the layman's mistake of calling CA "conversational analysis." The correct name of the field, of course, is "conversation analysis."
1
Nice illustration of why Prof. Pinker apparently was among the few folks in the two main havens of brilliance in Cambridge to wonder about just who the slippery fellow Jeffrey Epstein was and what he wanted in connection with his fabulous gift-giving.
1
I loved Pinker's first book which included analysis of the capabilities and words of pre school children. I think this makes him eminently qualified to parse our kindergartner in chief.
5
Look. If the Trump/Zelensky conversation took place in a Godfather movie there would not be a single viewer who would doubt that Trump was offering the military aid as a quid pro quo for the Biden investigation, for which there is no probable cause for an investigation.
Oh, "Trump isn't a mafia baron", you say. Nonsense, he was involved in a multitude of lawsuits, the overwhelming majority of which resulted in settlements and non-disclosure agreements.
" But he was never convicted of a crime." Neither was Al Capone ever convicted of any crime except tax evasion. Moreover, if one of Capone's thugs had suggested that, "you have a really nice establishment here ... " the next sentence would surely be an expression of what monthly payment might keep it that way.
And Trump did have a verdict against him in racist dealings with apartment rentals, and a public settlement for $25M for his fraudulent "university" in which no wrongdoing was admitted.
Anyone says "no quid pro quo" to the Trump conversation has been paid off or extorted in some way. Doesn't pass the "giggle" test.
3
This is a man who -- when he says up is up, down is down, right is right and wrong is wrong -- is lying.
5
Interesting essay for those who of us who may appreciate the search for truth in the linguistic weeds. I'll praise it, but do me a favor though. The Oxford Universal Dictionary states my*though* "introduces an additional statement restricting or modifying the preceding one: and yet, but yet, but still, however..."
Commenters and spokespersons report that Pres Zelensky brought up that Ukraine was "almost ready" to purchase US military equipment and Trump immediately said, "Do me a favor, though". "THOUGH" is the word to emphasize, the link to the "preceding" statement about receiving military aid and meaning "and yet, however, never-the-less", here's a related condition, a favor: investigate the DNC conspiracy & Biden by contacting Rudy Giuliani and AG Barr. "Though" establishes the quid pro quo. It is supportive evidence of the direct connection between Zelenski's last words, "[W]e're almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes", and Trump's reply, "I would like you to do us a favor though..." So thus it reads, "You are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes; I would like you to do us a favor though." All who appreciate simplicity and clarity of facts- which move public opinion- need to memorize and state these 'linguistic' facts. Then repeat!
1
@kfm "Though" is the tell, which is why I am so frustrated that most of the discussion on this matter has treated it as a throwaway. Oh, yeah, except one: Kevin McCarthy being interview by Scott Pelley, I believe. When Pelley quoted the full phrase, McCarthy protested too much, accusing Pelley him of having added "one word." Nope, Pelley pointed out; that one came with the original.
As another poster has pointed out, Pelley should have played along, a la "Oh, my bad, which word?" To which McCarthy could have explained precisely how the addition of "though" made the extortion attempt perfectly clear.
To which Pelley, of course, should have said, "You are right, it does make it sound like that, again, my bad."
Then shuffling further through his papers, adding, "Oh, wait ..."
1
This is ridiculous. When you ask a foreign leader to do something for you, you do not write a contract. You suggest, you insinuate. The fact seems to be that #45 used the office of the POTUS for political gain against his opponents.
4
Worth noting that any 5 year old angling for a cookie after dinner would understand this kind of exchange.
Also, as we are learning, the conversation was embedded in a tangle involving many people and many prior interactions, so that even the kindergarten level of pragmatic competence was not required.
Trump's mysterious "perfect" evaluation, by rumor repeated from Giuliani, indicates that he thought he'd skillfully camouflaged the threat --- like a child covering his eyes to hide.
4
When "quid pro quo" is defined this liberally, it makes it hard to imagine a conversation between foreign leaders in which there would be no quid pro quo. What would be the point?
1
Just as Jesus resorted to parable in order to reach the unwilling & incapable in acceptance of his message, so as his followers believe, Trump, must employ mild innuendo in reaching out to an ally, if indeed that ally wishes to be saved.
Trump's followers believe that derogatory "evidence" on a political opponent provided by a foreign leader is much less serious than, say, demanding access to oil, natural resources or market dominant agreement.
In short, Trump to his followers, is a philosopher king with poor manners & unwillingness to act with anything other than unilateral action. If an action is approved by the multitude or at least a sizable number, it must be unimpeachable.
Agree completely.
And this textual analysis is supported by the Whistleblower's complaint (additional facts and context) and the various text messages that made the quid pro quo explicit.
Well, that was as clear as mud.
Here's how it went:
Trump withdraws $400 million in essential military aid and then holds this conversation in which he asks for a favor, which three times turns out to be investigating his political opponent, making it as clear as possible that military aid depends on this favor--and that is clear because he had already withheld the aid. Impeachment is just a matter of time.
10
I find it incredible that this entire opinion piece by Steven Pinker is based on Pinker's assumption that whatever Trump consigliere William Barr's office offered up in the "memo" version of the conversation is a complete and accurate rendition of the conversation!!
Barr's office rushed to make the transcript super top secret when it clearly was not. Then the public saw a "memo" version put out by the very same people who had hidden the call in the first place.
We saw how William Barr's "memo" version of the Mueller Report just happened to leave out the most incriminating evidence of Trump's crimes that Mueller found.
So we can be all but certain that the "memo" version of Trump's call with Zelensky left out the most incriminating evidence of Trump's crimes.
When William Barr and his office are left to carefully edit what is presented to the American public, it is likely there is going to be a huge cover-up.
6
No, No,
Professor Pinker -
You know and I know and we all know that
the Intention of the Speaker resides with the speaker
not with the listener.
Trump has plausible deniability if he continues to say
his intention was not to do anything illegal.
By the way I do not get the married couple joke.
@John Brown
The wife didn't ask the husband to shut the window only that it is cold outside which in turn means shut the window because I am freezing.
See the implied ask but it wasn't stated directly and that is what trump and his followers are arguing only he did say Though we need a favor - stating his quid pro quo so he should be in jail but we have a corrupt Justice and Supreme Court so he will get away with his criminality.
2
I'm still waiting for trump's answer to a question posed to him by a reporter: Have you ever demanded an investigation of anyone who wasn't a political opponent?
12
As Michael Cohen pointed out in his testimony before Congress, Trump has perfected the art of the "ask", as opposed to the Art of the Deal (which was always purely fictional), by making heavy hints to subordinates about what he wants done without being explicit. Where did he learn this subtle practice? At the foot of Roy Cohn and indirectly from some of Cohn's more notorious clients, "Fat Tony" Salerno of the Genovese family and Paul Castellano of the Gambino family. So, according to the official White House transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky, the President of the United States conducts foreign affairs and, if we believe James Comey, domestic law enforcement as if he were a capo di tutti capi. Who would have ever believed this were possible?
7
Spot on. Not that a quid pro quo is/was necessary -- Trump's simply asking for foreign interference in our election is an impeachable offense in and of itself -- but quid pro quo was clearly implied to anyone who has one smidgeon of intellectual honesty.
Put those same words in the mouth of anyone who wields power, from your boss to a mob boss — "I would like you to do us a favor though — and they can mean only one thing: Do us a favor or we're not going to do you any favors; in fact, we're going to do you the opposite of a favor. We're going to retaliate against you somehow.
6
The impeachment of President Clinton did not depend on the word "is". It depended on the definition of "sexual relations".
Is a woman who has oral sex but refuses to have intercourse committing perjury if she testifies under oath that she is a "virgin"? If President Clinton believed sexual relations means sexual intercourse, was his testimony in a civil deposition about his consensual relationship (that did not include sexual intercourse) with a woman that had nothing to do with the lawsuit at hand even perjury?
The verdict is in that a President is absolutely not allowed to use semantics to avoid getting impeached. And in the case of President Clinton, the semantics covered up something personally embarrassing. In the case of Trump, all the semantics he and his defenders are using are covering up illegal and treasonous activity. Asking a foreign country to do "a favor" to get dirt on a political rival is illegal. Period. Discussing quid pro quo is the Republican way to distract from the criminality and treason.
This newspaper never gave Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt when what was at issue had nothing to do with governing. And yet when the stakes are about our democracy itself, this newspaper goes to extraordinary lengths to give equal weight to the Fox News view that Trump and his corrupt band of White House cronies might actually have a legitimate argument instead of treating this pathetic distraction that it is.
9
Professor Pinker, I believe that you miss the fundamental point. Irrespective of whether Joe Biden is running for President, Biden pere and Biden fils HAVE AN (alleged) HISTORY OF INFLUENCE PEDDLING abroad.
POTUS Trump is aware of this sordid history prior to and including the 2016 Election, so the request to firm up the details of an investigation into PAST DEALINGS, is entirely appropriate.
1
It doesn't really pay to be reasonable when people have lost their bearings. You are right that Trump asked Z to look into the "talk" about possible crimes by Biden or son. There is nothing wrong with that. Biden is not exempt because he's a candidate, and Trump is not disqualified from asking for investigations because the person being investigated is a candidate from the opposite Party.
As Pinker implies, it's also true that, on some level, there is no reason for Presidents to be speaking with other leaders at all unless there is something mutually advantageous involved. Anything that benefits the US in such discussions benefits the reputation of the President and weakens political opponents. You can't separate those things easily.
The idea that President Trump committed an impeachable offense here is ludicrous. But it doesn't make any difference when people have lost their bearings.
The Dems just don't accept the results of the last election, and they are doing anything to undermine the President, even if it hurts the Country. This needs to be settled by an election, not the madness we are involved in now. And yet an election seems to be what the Dems fear above all.
@dmanuta You need to get the facts.
The Stratford and Biden Jr. alleged corruption claims havre been investigated and dismissed as false.
Trump is dealing in conspiracy theories, not legitimate investigations. He is asking for foreign powers to manufacture false claims.
Regardless, the request is illegal on its face and the context makes it treasonous.
4
So if they got their aid, where's the dirt ?
1
Even a Mafia Don asks for favors, he doesn't come right out and say do this or I will kill you. He asks you for a favor, and you do it because you know the consequences. This is how it's done, even in the underworld.
5
There must also be a quid pro quo with Biden's son. We hire your son and you treat us special, Joe.
3
Come on, you guys. Forget about the “quid pro quo.” Trump’s proposition was a “sine qua non”—do this or you get nothing! We never should have stopped teaching Latin in school.
16
"You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows" and we don't need a linguist to confirm that our current President behaves like a Mafioso.
10
Justice Stewart wasn't ready to define pornography, but instead averred, "I know it when I see it."
Same here. We might not be able to define the exact phrases which made Trump's call a request to trade defense aid for getting dirt on his major political opponent, but we know i a quid pro quo when we hear it, or see it in transcripts.
The quid pro quo was there, and most of us recognized it, without anyone having to define it in blatant terms.
5
I wish Professor Pinkner had gone further in his analysis of the implied content: The "favor" is not asking for an impartial investigation. The "favor" is insisting on dirt, real or fictional, on the Bidens. Less there be any doubt, when Mr. Trump was asked for the names of other Americans whose corrupt behavior in Ukraine or China was of concern, he could not name any.
7
So what's your point, based on your linguistic expertise, he may have implied that it would be better for all concerned if an investigation occured and therefore he made a demand? That doesn't hold up, and you know it; if we evaluated political interactions with that level of scrutiny, we'd be throwing every single one of our politicians in jail.
Further, even if Trump had told the Ukrainian president in no uncertain terms to investigate or else, that's still not a crime even if unsavory. Trump has the power to investigate whoever he wants and to use what domestic and international tools are available to him in furtherance thereof. The fact that the target of the investigation is a political rival does not immunize such rival from being investigated. We've had political rivals investigating the President non-stop since 2016, so it's surprising this has to be pointed out to anyone.
Nearly all investigations by and of politicians are politically motivated. They only become illegal if they lack any legally sufficient basis AND the instigator thereof knew with crystal clear certainty that there was no such basis. That's a nearly impossible standard to meet, and it won't be met here. Kind of like when the police pull over a guy for not wearing his seatbelt. The seatbelt infraction may have been a pretense to look for narcotics or other rule breaking, but it's perfectly legal to pull someone over for not wearing a seatbelt so it doesn't matter what the officer's intent was.
1
@Bob
Trump is the president and has the power of the presidency. It is completely inappropriate for the president to use the power of the presidency to ask a foreign leader to do political dirty work against the president's domestic political rivals. Foreign policy negotiations are for the good of the United States. This is Civics 101 and Good Government 101. What Trump did is Banana Republic 101.
1
@Bob ORWELL: Trump Talking point alert.
EVERYBODY DOES IT - CLASSIC DISTRACTION AND LEGITIMATION.
1
@Bob
>Trump has the power to investigate whoever he wants and to use what domestic and international tools are available to him in furtherance thereof.<
Well, if that's the case then why did Trump didn't use the tools available to him? He could have asked AG Barr to file an official request for legal assistence for investigations to Ukraine's Ministry of Justice/Office of Ukraine's Lead Procecutor, according to the treaty between the US and the Ukraine regarding mutal legal assistance for criminal matters. Given that there's a legal basis to start an investigation into the Bidens, an official request for assistance to the Ukraine by AG Barr would have been an appropiate and perfectly legal way to handle this matter and Trump could have avoided all the trouble he's facing right now.
However, Trump didn't ask Barr to make such a request which we know because a spokesperson for the DOJ has said Trump never directly asked Trump to launch an investigation into the Bidens (see https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/william-barr-ukraine-memo-1512255). Instead, Trump send his private lawyer and his VP to the Ukraine, to do his bidding and pressure the President of the Ukraine to start an investigation.
So the question remains: why has Trump chosen this unoffical (shady) way and - even more important - why has he tried to keep it secret? It doesn't make any sense, unless he knew what he did was innappropiate.
1
Apply this denial of quid pro quo to election financing. We'll get rid of Trump the obvious crook, one way or another. But our Citizens United decision stays, to keep infecting our politics with special interest money. There's plenty of swamp creatures out there to benefit--with rationalizations of legality.
The Court majority absurdly denied that big money in politics leads to quid pro quo corruption.
Is it 'in jest' when a small class of elite mega donors gives huge sums to our candidates? Or do they expect returns on investment, by politicians doing the bidding?
Mega donor money as 'free speech' is the S. Court's distortion of our famous 1st Amendment. They used a lie worthy of Trump to transfer power to US elites, so they can get anything they want.
It muffles the free speech of the citizen majority who can't compete, and thus get very little. Our 2020 Dems see this more clearly now.
What majorities of voters want is to reverse Citizens United, restore limits on donor money, to rebalance our politics for the public good. Opponents will just label this left wing big govt. The media gets profits from paid ads.
Our warped norms set the stage for Tsar Trump the Exploiter and his enforcers---a step by step process to transfer power.
The only Times column to ever focus on this was by Thomas Esall "After Citizens United, a Vicious Cycle of Corruption" Dec 2018. The media mostly ignores what set the stage for corruption that Trump defiantly doubles down on.
2
What’s this? Do we also need a parsing of Don Corleone’s entreaties?
3
This picking at linguistic crumbs by Dr Pinker without the comparison and comparing of Joe Biden's video evidence of call off the posse or you are not getting the money is an omission by an acclaimed academic which stretches belief.
There is a saying you have to be really educated to be that blind to the facts, but then facts are of little import when one is engaged in a quasi religious war as is the United States and of course the UK with the stay/leave Brexit Crusades. The answer to these problems does not lie, interesting as it may be, in dissecting the language employed by one side of the
argument.
1
A couple of comments:
1. "quid pro quo" originally meant to confuse one thing (quid) for another (quo). Somehow, it came to mean giving one thing to get another.
2. Zelensky: " We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike .."
It is clear that one thing Zelensky's request for more weapons is followed by Trump's you have to do me a favor, though. The meaning of "though" is clear: if you want the weapons, you have to do me a favor.
3.When an important person mentions something to someone else, especially someone in an dependent position, he does need to specify things. If a president says, for example, to one of his secretaries that " Stephen Jones wrote me about his request"., the other person does not need to be told that the president wants him to take care of it.
3
So according to the Republicans if the Democrats now say "If Iran can get us information on trump that would be great" is a valid strategy and would not be problematic in any way.
8
On a short drive with the (public, nwpr) radio on this morning, I listened to Joni Ernst and some trump supporters in Kansas who have not only been stumped by trump's between-the-lines requests, but by the actual words transcribed in the record of the July 25 call.
Perhaps they are waiting for the actual recording, not trusting the fact that the transcription corroborates exactly what the whistleblower has reported.
Or perhaps they are waiting for a linguist from Harvard to explain what that conversation actually meant, because it wasn't at all clear to them.
I'd bet that none of these people are so socially inept or linguistically challenged when they are buying a used car, or a house.
7
Cohen said that DT talks in code. He is a master of implication, saying or asking for something without the words.
4
October 7, 2019
Oh confronting the Trump language: has in this article by the good Professor Pinker the right spirit to engage in conscious knowledge of conversational engagements. Now let's compare our best hope for next election a President Joe Biden - sounds so eloquence, truthful and indeed fit to the guide proposed to our citizenry dialogues and dare say for the politician of high order that are living examples of the American political tongue and all therefore having to live with the is is type quirks that maybe be historic and lessons to embrace = Let's make America communicative with our going forth to live well with honor is the philological certainty for legalities above board.
1
I'm a fan of "The Language Instinct" and Mr Pinker's other works on linguistics, and enjoyed this essay. I would like to see him address Mr Trump's behavior, though, through the lens of his book "The Better Angels of our Nature," particularly chapter 8 on "our inner demons." I think he might get a kick out of writing such an essay; certainly I would enjoy reading it.
1
Interesting article on the vagaries of quid pro quo from the “cognitive scientist” who had dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Did Pinker ever accept anything of value from the Uber benefactor Epstein and his filthy billions?
4
Genteel syntax and semantics are used in fraught contexts to obscure, confuse, and lessen liability.
Trump does not achieve these effects consciously, rather it's instinctive for him.
Following the mayhem Trump leaves in his Twitter-wake his lawyers and protectors do intentionally use confusing semantic and syntactic devices to protect him (and themselves).
3
Might it not be time to rename the party that Trump now controls so definitively? I think of his defenders as the Pretzel Party, since they are so eager to twist themselves into any posture required to justify his acts.
5
Who is the "us" in Trump's statement? That it was a request to investigate Biden signifies that it was not the American pepole but Trump himself, as in the royal "we." Of course, Trump will say the transcript was faulty and he meant "the US."
2
I hope Dr. Pinker is invited back to write more pieces like this. It would be great to read a summary of the analytical support he provided Epstein and Dershowitz.
2
Here's the thing.
We need to stop discussing the whole quid pro quo thing, because it's irrelevant.
The president asked for a "favor" -- assistance in gathering information that would be damaging to a political rival. The solicitation is a violation of trust in and of itself. Game over.
We need to stop playing his game, and going down the rabbit hole of whether there was a quid pro quo is like arguing about whether there was "collusion" (a non-crime). Stop letting him dictate the narrative!
10
@JM
Thank you, thank you!
1
EVERYTHING Trump does is a deal. He always talks and writes about deals. He never does anything that doesn't involve a deal where he gets something in return. Ever.
So, why would this conversation, this interaction beyond a single phone call, be any different? And it's even admitted to in the supposedly white-washed summary of a transcript of a conversation.
2
And if you share your calamari with your dining partner in exchange for some clams, its a squid pro quohog.
4
@Mike Gordon
Too funny! I needed a humorous comment, thanks!
Dear Professor Pinker,
I take your linguistic point but differ on the implication. Despite my personal antipathy for the President, just look at the revolving door in D.C. that allows ordinary folks to walk in and oligarchs to walk out.
Without even getting into the sort of military-industrial-political obscenities committed legally by Dick Cheney and hundreds of lesser operatives like him, let us submit that institutionalized corruption has operated in this nation since its inception.
So pray tell, what exactly ought Trump impeached for?
The answer, if we are truthful, is that in recent times we ignored countless legal atrocities and impeached Clinton for a dalliance, and now we’re ignoring a man presiding over peace and prosperity because half the country has gone off the deep end in disbelief that we could have elected a moral imbecile as commander-in-chief.
But we did. And this latest piling on will merely make his re-election even easier.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
1
With so many words, a simple thought arises, similar to defining pornography...when we see it. Unless we are idiots or are being paid to not understand it, Trump made no attempt to hide his real motive, by withholding the promised military aid to Ukraine, until Zelensky showed his distinct will to 'cooperate' with Trump's request, finding dirth on his political opponent (Biden)... so to assure that his re-assault of the presidency in 2020 is successful. This is classic Trump, a vulgar bully that has no scruples nor decency to get his crooked way. This is not only regrettable, it is a 'crime'...even when supported by the Republican party, fully complicit in Trump's misdeeds.
1
Nice try at rationalization here.
He did not ask for election help. He asked to investigate corruption at the highest level of our government. Something our own press is not doing.
This is all a moot point anyway. Politics are so divided that the Senate will not do the Democrats biding.
The impeachment will fail and Trump will frame it was another failed coup and complete exoneration. I say this with certainty.
2
Trump has been operating on the basis of “quid pro quo” all his life with one major difference, as so many who did business with him found to their cost -he often got the “quid” while the other party was left to whistle for the “quo.”
3
Each Republican in Congress who is in denial has struck legislative deals less straightforward than this phone call. Each of them that are businessmen, and every rich Trumper, has made a business deal on the golf course, etc. that was less obvious. They've all watched and understood mob films. Their denial is expected but still grotesque
1
"No Quid Pro Quo" "No Collusion"
How readily the issue is reframed -- in this case, pre-emptively.
I'm willing to bet Trump NEVER used the term quid-pro-quo until just before this incident. When he was informed by his lawyers that he couldn't negotiate a quid-pro-quo, he started telling all his subordinates: this is not a quid-pro-quo.
It's a perfect term for him: restrictive, neutral, obscure; clear to the lawyers and meaningless to his followers. Give credit where credit is due.
Ceci n'est pas un pipe!
1
So “if” the Ukrainian prosecutor does find improper activity or international violations with the energy company Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000/month, “then” how would this be a violation of US law by the President?
1
Hypothetically, late at night on a dark street, Lindsay Graham is stopped by a young man wearing a "hoodie" who touches a pistol-shaped bulge in his pocket and says "I suggest you give me all your money."
I'm sure Graham would not report this, or be inclined to press charges if the young man were picked up, since the latter merely made a suggestion untethered to any other condition. I'm sure that would be Graham's interpretation, and that he would be content for the young man to keep all the cash Graham had given him.
1
@AM
Hypothetically, the man could be pointing a gun or holding a knife, as long as the man didn't actually say "see this gun, I will shoot you if you don't give me your money". Lindsay Graham would give him all his money and insist that the man is innocent of all crimes.
1
Sometimes a shakedown is just a shakedown.
7
Ahi Steve! quid pro quo is a quid for the quo, not a quo for the quid...
ah, yes... made in jest.
When was the last time Donald told a joke? or said anything funny, except when he was being insulting?
Donald is not exactly Henny Youngman.
2
The reason that Donald Trump used the unusual word "perfect" to describe this phone call was that either he was coached in terms of words he could use that would convey the intended meaning but offer plausible deniability when read as part of a transcript or he decided himself that there were specific words he did not use. He is accustomed to skirting the law so this is part of his standard M.O. where everything he does is perfect.
Crime bosses have famously made their meanings quite clear, and so in fact have your mothers, fathers, teachers, and managers without using exact language. We know what is being said. Trump's meaning was clear and is clear to all except those who willfully ignore it in their efforts to enable him.
Trump believes himself to be clever and sly, but in this case he asked a for personal favor of a foreign leader to hobble a political opponent, not in the country's interest but in his own. Quid-pro-quo or not.
3
It’s the though, though, Donald. It’s the though.
5
“I did not have quid pro quo relations with that man, Mr. Zelensky.”
Thanks. I needed that.
10
Trump acts like the gangsters he met through his father while growing up and from watching movies and TV. He's a caricature and a natural bully, but effective at getting what he wants. He'll say anything, which is evidence of his lack of principles. I can only imagine how many times this has happened since Jan 2017 that we'll likely never know about. So much corruption, so little time to ferret it all out.
4
Quid pro quo...just something else on the menu that Trump would never order...
I wonder where S. Pinker's "devastating wit" and "piercing analysis" were when it came to analyzing speech by representatives of the leftist establishment! Where was he then? Lemme guess, he just happened to miss those opportunities, right?
2
Trump voter don't care 'bout no quid pro quo; Trump voter don't know no Latin.
6
This may lead to Trump's undoing, but the shame of all this crass corruption, bilious bigotry and mean-spirited mendacity is that it'll take a lot more than simply removing Trump to accomplish all the undoing we'll need to do to clean up his miserable mess.
2
Seriously? If you spent any time in NYC, Boston, Providence, etc. during the 70s or 80s, you would have no doubt whatsoever as to what "I would like you to do me a favor" means.
4
It lines up well with how Trump is dishonest, fundamentally. In the opinion of hundreds of psychologists who signed on the bottom line attesting to that, Trump has a few screws loose. It happened. "Government is the problem", so why are you asking anyone to vote for you if you have no intentions of representing us by participating in that ...Problem. And they don't -- represent us. Pick an issue outside of gun ownership, not even ownership but registration and abortion. Pick an issue; consumer protection, how can they be hostile to consumers and ask them to vote for them? The list goes on, it's most issues esp. Environment. Telling that they have no problem with dumping chemicals into our waters. Their defense is equivalent to Frodo's ring, where he puts it on and he becomes invisible -- ignoring subpoenas, refusing to testify, hiding tax returns, being uncooperative with journalists and inventing the defense "Fake News". The one size fits all Swiss Army knife for what you don't want to believe or let anyone find out about too soon. I'll trade journalists for republicans in a minute. Republicans will become obsolete soon enough like the tails we had.
They're useless and they allow polluters everything they ask for. Pick an issue, that it if McConnell will even allow discussion of it. How does that happen?
1
What 5-year old wouldn’t understand this que pro quo exchange?
Child: “Dad, I’m ready for that cookie.”
Father: “You have to pick up your toys, though.”
15
Honestly we did not need a world famous Harvard professor to tell us this in a lengthy OpEd. Obvious stuff.
2
A Linguist’s Guide to Quid Pro Quo
Where yes means yes, and know means know
If this, then that – or that’s not this
Sounding more like hit or miss
Where T’s not F, and F’s not T
Unless says a majority
Where is, is not – and isn’t is
Agnostics rule and not God’s biz
Where you walk, angels fear to tread
Where you talk, they say God is dead
Though God’s not a Harvard grad
One semester – all he had
On the eighth day, God created Harvard...
And on the ninth and subsequent days – Harvard created Microsoft, Bitcoin, Facebook, and Steve Bannon...
(not necessarily in that order)
Steve, God’s still there – he just got tired watching...
Said to wake him when it’s over...
3
Wow, Steve...
So, this is the meaning of “all this”...
Or, is “this” the meaning of all this...
Even God would be on the fence, on this one...
It’s clear – even to a Maspeth grad – that the opposite of “quid pro quo” is “quid con quo”...
And – for sufficient quid – you con quod me on that...
QED
1
As an appellate lawyer, I have seen many prosecutions based on implied language that was far less damning than in the conversation here, yet the jury found the crime was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the conviction affirmed on appeal. (And most lawyers would not even argue on appeal that the evidence was insufficient.)
5
In Trump's dictionary "Quid Pro Quo" means " Its You or Me". The "Me" always wins.
To Clinton's credit, he probably knew what he was doing was wrong.
For Trump, not only are his deeds an attempt at utter perfection but he often wonders why the rest of us are deficient and not more like him.
2
Today, Judge Marrero utterly rejected the Trump administration's claim that the president is above the law. If you read his ruling, what the president claimed is absolutely amazing: that he and his White House and his family and his companies are shielded from ANY part of a criminal process from the initial investigation all the way through to sentencing. Trump genuinely believes that, as Nancy Pelosi recounted, he can do whatever he wants (probably because he always has).
I'm amazed the GOP are even bothering with the quid pro quo argument. It is clear from their acceptance of the stonewalling of Congress to the claims his lawyers make in court, that their argument actually is, if Donald Trump used the power of the presidency to get a foreign leader to agree to investigate a political opponent, it must be okay because he did it and he is above the law. Why muddy the water with qpq?
7
You know the impeachment drive isn't going too well when you need linguists to make your case.
The corporate Democrats are totally out of control. They go after Trump for the one thing he is doing right, corruption, and do nothing about the 1,000 things he is doing wrong.
No wonder 40% of eligible voters don’t even bother. There is only one political party in the USA: The corporate war-mongering party.
Unreal.
3
Linguists are not needed to make the case, which is as clear as day. Linguists are needed to dismantle the Republican lie that there was no quid pro quo in a clear and reasoned manner in order to quell that ridiculous line of defense.
3
@Barbara
Quid pro quo is pretty much how governments of different nations deal with each other. It's only illegal if he personally benefits from said quid pro quo. The fact that Trump has a legitimate reason to look into the corruption of Biden resulting from the illegal Ukrainian coup makes this a very hard thing to prove.
Much easier, and much more justified, would be for Democrats to impeach him for aiding and abetting the war crime committed against the people of Yemen at the hands of Saudi Arabia, but since Obama started that whole mess, I guess, it's "off the table" as Pelosi said when it came to impeaching the Bush cabal for torture.
Another one would be impeaching for violating the emoluments clause, but that also hits close to home, so they’re going for "withholding military aid to neo-Nazis in Ukraine". Sounds like a loser to me.
Being from Brooklyn, I can't even pretend to be so dense as to make believe I do not know what's going on. Even parsing the nuance to prove the point makes me squirm uncomfortably because it's unnecessary and extends a needless conversation/debate.
Man's guilty. Impeach and then prosecute.
7
No need to search for a "quid pro quo". An impeachable offense can occur without a dramatic video catching Trump promising arms for dirt on a rival. The whole notion preys ordinary people's assumption that a President is tried for a crime like a defendant in Perry Mason.
3
Linguistically, we should also look at the word "us" in "I would like you to do us a favor, though." Trump is currently framing his request as a pursuit of the national interest in rooting our corruption. In that frame, "us" would be the American people. But in a common sense reading of that phrase where it is understood that the announcement of an investigation would clearly benefit Trump's re-election campaign, "us" is Trump's campaign committee or simply the so-called royal "we."
4
Lots of thinking put into this article to understand a conversation from a man who does very little of this activity. It’s pretty simple really, Trump sells the country out for personal gain, then backtracks, squirms, pivots etc. when caught out. Nothing new here, happens every hour at the WH. We just don’t know all of it, though.
11
Until the real version of the conversation is given, you know the one, where Trump had it removed from the usual server and put into the "secrecy" server, we can think whatever we want as to what the meaning of the conversation is.
After all, it is Lindsay Graham, Barr, and Giuliani plus certain White House aides who have said that the transcript, typed up by who knows who, is what the Committee has. Maybe it isn't as accurate as Trump and his cronies would have us believe.
The actual transcript needs to be handed over. In fact, it sounds as if the whole secure server where a few other conversations were moved to, should be handed over to the Committee. I bet we will find out a lot more about Trump and his hanky-panky, or on a more serious note, whether he is committing Obstruction of Justice, Treason or something else.
2
This detailed analysis reveals the nuances and inferences that are required in a transactional conversation and, although Zelenksy seems quite fluent, he is functioning in his second language - a distinct disadvantage, especially coupled with his political inexperience. The administration no doubt felt that he could be manipulated. However, this doesn’t give any points to Trump for shrewdness. Rather, he is blunt and thuggish.
4
Why do so many people leave out the word THOUGH when they are quoting his request for a favor.
It is such an important word that he picked to follow, "I would like you to do us a favor."
It makes the request even more potent.
6
But wait! It was a perfect conversation according to our president. I take that to mean that the quid pro quo was communicated perfectly on both sides.
7
Like all great poetry (TIC), his words are concrete enough to serve as a touchstone to a shared reality, but vague enough to allow for individual interpretation. Perfectly ambiguous/unambiguous. But both Trump and Zelensky knew what he was talking about--And so do we.
7
I don't think that a quid pro quo is an element of the crime in question, merely the solicitation of foreign involvement in a US election (without any return whatsoever) qualifies.
22
Having observed decades of Trump's personal conduct as a citizen of New York city followed by 4 years as a politician, I don't need an analysis of that conversation or any roadmap to guide me through its nuances.
Because it's a no-brainer. Just try to name one act of altruism or selflessness on the part of Mr. Trump. Not easy to think of one, huh... because Trump only wants to do something when there's something in it for Trump. And when there's not, it's not easy to miss the begrudging complaints, name-calling and/or exacting of revenge.
32
Steven Pinker is incredible and I must love and admire him for writing the Better Angels of our Nature. A fantastic book. However this article is beneath him and his talents. Walk into any business or politician's office and you will find this exact type of language. The real issue is that it doesn't really matter whether the president was attempting to influence the investigation of Biden or the larger Obama regime or not. The president of the USA has immense power and influence and Quid Pro Quo is not a stumbling block.
Republicans win by cheating, and their leader proved it once again. Nothing is more pathetic than a cheater.
6
It is disappointing that someone so astute and respected as Professor Pinker would write that second paragraph with its presumption that only with the quid pro quo does the request itself become impeachable.
7
A meaningful legal analysis would include quotation and textual analysis of the pertinent laws, discussion of their prior application (is a quid pro quo even necessary?), and comparison with the present case. Instead, the article operates in a legal vacuum, consistent with the author's legal credentials.
5
@eisweino
Professor Pinker is what in court would be called an "expert witness." His expert analysis is in this case is for disclosing and confirming what is obvious to common sense, to unravel any postures of plausible deniability. This by the way is an entirely useful and necessary exercise (expert confirmation of the obvious), because the point is to obliterate whatever wiggle room Trump attempts to rely on, the main challenge in the impeachment matter. Professor Pinker accomplishes this perfectly and deserves our profound thanks -- even if he is merely confirming the obvious.
35
This excellent explication would be lost on Trump and his virulently anti-intellectual followers. Too long, too complicated, too demanding. Two paragraphs in, and they’d throw up their hands in exasperation—and then, the name-calling would begin: “Eggheads!” they’d say. “Can’t get a straight answer out of ‘em.” Good thing the court of public opinion is not the only place this case will be tried.
26
@Kryztoffer
It’s not the anti-intellectualism of the Trumpeters that is relevant here. It is their willingness to call the sky green and the grass blue in Trump’s service. The deliberate denial of reality is different from — and even more dangerous to democracy than — anti-intellectualism.
Our democratic republic has become a kakistocracy.
25
@Kryztoffer
You do not have to be an "intellectual" to know right from wrong, or truth from fiction.
4
@Kryztoffer How amusing......... there are a few who cling to the old strategy of accusing those who don't share their beliefs or conclusion of being anti-intellectual. It's not very convincing or stylish. One might just as well say "whoever disagrees with me is stupid and uneducated". Is this supposed to be subtlety, or just a definite bragging sentence? Most people disregard Deep North with the use of this explanation.
"..fulsome congratulations..." At last we have an author who is able to use the word "fulsome" with its correct meaning and resonance (excessive, unctuous, flattering). Thank you!
5
Tongue in cheek....somewhat....
So any mafia member could now point to this conversation and say "See, POTUS didn't get impeached because of the same words that I'm using for which your charging me for a crime. I'm as innocent as the President....just ask Lindsay."
4
The quid pro quo here is the power and influence of the office of the president of the United States. When Trump asks for a favor it is not the same as your brother-in -law asking to borrow the lawn mower. When Trump says, "Do me a favor", you think, "What will be the consequence if I say no?" You say no to Trump at your peril.
197
@bobbrum I think its all about "Supply Side". Power is too broad to define the specificities of what they're up to. Follow the money they give away disproportionately. How do so many give that laundering a pass? Lets try Demand Side./
1
@bobbrum
Very astute observation: the power of the speaker makes a huge difference. When Henry II asked, " Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest ? " it was not an innocent question.
74
Why is a quid pro quo or pressuring a foreign president more illegal or somehow worse than just requesting a foreign president to get undertake actions that the requestor wants to influence an election in his favor? Isn't asking for foreign actions asking for foreign interference? Isn't asking for a foreign favor asking for foreign interference?
13
Just to be clear, the request to investigate political rivals was by itself an abuse of power, i.e. "high crimes and misdemeanors." It did not need an enticement or threat to become so.
24
This is a nice linguistic analysis, except for one thing: there is no context.
The context is that Trump is holding up the aid that Zelensky references, the javelins.
One does not need to be a linguist to recognize a shakedown.
12
Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats will interpret the same phrases very differently. It's less a question of the intended communication of the interlocutors than it is a matter of the interests of the adjudicators. Democrats will interpret Trump's statements as a barely veiled attempt at extortion, while Republicans will pretend to regard them as an ordinary diplomatic gambit. But everyone knows what Trump meant when he asked for a favor. But Republicans will refuse to acknowledge it, no matter how obviously criminal his intention was.
7
Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-fixer, gave a brief but quite thorough lesson on how Trump communicates what he wants and expects without giving a clear order. Trump's conversation with Zelensky follows Cohen's hypothetical script to the letter.
I can't wait for Trump to be out of the White House.
33
Most communication doesn't function on "if-then" statements. Even the world of contracts, through which all business gets conducted, has as it's benchmark whether a reasonable person would believe that an agreement was made; it does not require a logic-filled world of if-then statements. Here, would any reasonable person believe that Trump was not trying to make a deal? He's the self-professed master it. Of course he was looking to make a deal.
That deal was to trade America's principles for his personal gain.
274
@Rich
"He's the self-professed master it."
If you have to tell me who you are, you aren't.
18
@Rich
We should be learning by now from republican history. Steal from our treasury once, shame on me do it every time you get to the Presidency you're a money launderer.
8
@Rich
And don't forget using taxpayer money as part of the extortion deal. Trump has always been a master at using other people's money. Maybe he'll finally learn that this can be a costly business - like maybe up to 20 years in federal prison. Will the Secret Service have to accompany him in his cell?
9
I’m amazed at Trumps indefatigable capacity to propagandize. Just thinking about having to maintain such a complex network of lies on a second by second basis exhausts me. I don’t know if you people are aware of it, but he has been running political ads here in Arizona. No election, no endorsement of a candidate, just a vilification of Schiff and Pelosi followed by Trump and only Trump as the only guy who can get it done. Not quite sure what ‘it’ is though. However, ‘it’ will always be here because the purported savior needs to save people from something. So many glaring overlaps between this and the NSDAP, it is baffling...
14
In Buddhism we have the Speech Precepts for a reason. What you say and how you say it matter. From the time we are small children we are taught by our parents what to and what not to say, as well as by our teachers at school and society in general. But at some point, we have to take responsibility for our speech as well as our actions. And making excuses for our speech, or just plain lying about what we said is not okay. It's just unskillful. WE ALL need to take responsibility for what we say, and Mr. Trump and his supporters need to grow up and own up.
18
I like the ending sentence. :-)
"That is because people in a social relationship rarely hammer out a deal in so many words but veil their offers in politeness and innuendo, counting on their hearers to listen between the lines."
I have to object here. You left out an operant word after because and before people; "dishonest"
Honest people don't do this unless talking to a child about something they are too young for. If you are honest and find your interlocutor is confused or unable to be explicit take it as a sign they are doing this. It should make you hesitate to make the deal since they obviously cannot be trusted to live up to it.
"cold and transactional." is the GOP preferred method of government when dealing with anyone who is not wealthy. The less wealthy you are the colder they prefer it to be.
2
I don't know, the Republicans are saying no laws were broken. Maybe it's ok to ask foreign governments for help against political opponents if you don't pay them or bibe them. Please Republicans, tell us. Maybe Republicans think it's ok to ask foreign governments for help against political opponents even if you have to bribe them, or pay them to do. Just tell us your rules so Democrats can play by the same ones. After all there is probably more than one foreign government that has dirt on Trump and would be willing to share it for the right incentive and maybe the don't even need anything from Democrats.
198
Every once in a while it is good for us to learn a little bit more about ourselves. We are constantly being bombarded by the egregiousness and downright corruption of all things Trump. We need a break even if the end result is still politics. Steven Pinker has just laid out for us the culture, the innuendos of conversation. How many of us, albeit quite benignly, leave unsaid in words that which is clear in meaning? We do it most often socially, in a polite and civil manner. But the line is crossed when it involves lies and threats for the single purpose of power and control. The line is crossed when we also consider the source and the danger that can be presented to a nation's security, indeed democracy. The art of quid pro quo used for malignant reasons has sunk into the depths, indeed has reached its nadir. But what would we have possibly expected other than what we are now faced with? Trump was nurtured in a viper's pit. His poison reaches far and wide. If he has not destroyed others with it, he has transmitted just enough of his venom to the vulnerable and weak who carry on his cancerous double-talk.
13
Fact Check: No. 45 is all about "Quid Pro Quo's". The underlying theme for all decisions and negotiations is, "Let's Make a Deal". As for China: "I will not mention the democracy demonstrations, if you agree to come to Washington DC to restart trade talks" As to North Korea, I will not stop you from testing missiles, as long as you don't test a bomb". In essence, it is the Art of the Quid Pro Quo! Let's face it, Ukraine was no exception to the rule, as is No. 45's MO in life - "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours".
4
The Constitutional law violated by this telephone conversation does not require a quid pro quo. The FEC regulation also only requires a “SOLICITATION” for something used for personal political advancement. A solicitation is a simple request, an ask, a “pretty please, could you do me this favor.” There is NO NEED for force either overt or covert, hence the President’s claim of a “perfect” conversation.
But worse than the phone call is Trump’s asking China in front of the whole world to start an investigation of the Bidens with no apparent goal or evidence or reason to do so. And let’s not forget his “Russia, if your listening . . .” request, though to be fair that was before he was President. (That’s just an FEC violation?)
We have a Congress full of ethically and morally challenged Republicans who, if this President did kill someone right in front of them, would say it was self defense because he feared for his life! How’s that for linguistic jujitsu?
This guy has an uncanny ability to utilize the mean and the nasty and the cowardly inside everyone who gets near him. They all think that everyone does it and not to be outdone they end up doing it too, until someone who actually has little to gain by being a liar and a cheat blows the whistle or shouts to the crowd: THE KING IS NAKED!. What a thought . . . ewww.
37
@B. Rothman I agree, but you need to read the Mueller Report.
Mueller found that opposition research was not legally a "thing of value".
That is a huge legal issue.
@Bill Wolfe what page is that on, please? I want to check.
Part of Trump's genius is his ability to tilt the playing field in his favor. Because Biden campaigns as honorable, he is in a position for Trump to destroy him with the slightest hint of impropriety. However, because Trump campaigns as a junkyard dog, the Democrats are forced to collect overwhelming evidence to stop him. Let's hope that changes very soon.
23
Mr. Pinker made FOUR glaring errors.
1. He pontificates on constitutional matters beyond his pay grade.
“But if the request was tendered as an enticement or threat that military equipment approved by Congress would be forthcoming only if Mr. Zelensky complied, it could rise to the level of “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Sorry, but anyone who has read papers recently knows the mere solicitation of a foreign government’s assistance in a U.S. election is illegal and impeachable. It does NOT require a quid pro quo.
It undermines national security and abridges the rule of law and our democracy. (A parallel just occurred to me—prostitutes are jailed for soliciting, even if they don’t complete a transaction!)
2. Mr. Pinker, in usual academic sophistry, tries too hard and is being too cutesy in this analysis. Any reasonable person who has read the “transcript” knows there was an explicit quid pro quo. It’s blatant and a “your money or your life” situation.
3. All we have is an abbreviated *readout* of the call, with major omissions and ellipses. It is only half as long as expected. No doubt we will discover Trump’s top NSA folks scrubbed even more blatant & explicit language!
4. Mr. Pinker ignores the fact the call is just part of a *mountain* of evidence. The whistleblower’s complaint, the IG report, and the text messages among Trump’s minions lay out a months-long campaign of EXPLICIT quid pro quo pressure on Ukraine.
1
This is interesting, but what the Times needs to provide is a legal analysis, preferably solicited from a nonpartisan (to the extent possible, in good faith), or perhaps two countering analyses. Surely there are legal standards and standard precedents in American law. Can any mafia boss escape criminal solicitation charges simply be saying they were joking? “My henchmen misunderstood me?” “That’s a nice family you got there — shame if anything were to happen to it.” Who has gotten away with that kind of stuff? Who hasn’t?
2
@earnest
This is a legal analysis of that conversation. The law relies upon correct use of language followed by contextual usage and habitual usage. And when dealing with legislation anything the legislative body may have said about intent and purpose.
The standard here is reality. We know the circumstances Ukraine is dealing with and we know they rely upon us to hold on to what little they have left of their nation since Putin declared war on them and invaded and took half of it without saying so publicly.
Thus the context of that conversation gives that conversation its meaning. And if you are being honest you do not have to know that context to understand that Trump is asking for something in return for, possibly in advance of selling them weapons.
5
@magicisnotreal What is missing is a discussion of how such language and context has been interpreted in analogous case law, precedents, etc. in American law. Impeachment has little precedent, but there are clearly direct analogies to criminal law standards. Echoed in several comments (@eisweino, @Marsha Pembroke, etc.)
1
@magicisnotreal Not only is Trump "asking for something in return", there is an underlying threat the the Ukraine will not receive assistance in their defense of their Nation against Putin and the Russians. Maybe Putin is still pulling Trump's strings.
2
Quite correct on the logic of the conversation. The quid pro quo is central to the exchange captured in the call notes.
But Pinker casts a little false light on the matter of criminality. Even without any quid pro quo, asking Ukraine to provide a political favor by pursuing his electoral rival is already a grave crime. The ask, by itself, is illegal — even if nothing further comes of it, and even nothing is offered in return.
The quid pro quo (implicit but obvious) just makes the illegal "ask" that much more vivid, and that much more grotesque.
293
@SL True enough. Attention ought to be fixed on Trump's betrayal of his oath of office and why the Constitution has the injunction that Trump violated. The whole point of the "quid pro quo" is to fudge the issue; raising it as something relevant is laughable. Imagine that someone in a fit of anger set fire to his neighbor's house and then argued that he shouldn't be arrested because he didn't receive any quid pro quo. The real issue to be clarified is the value of the Constitutional provision that Trump violated. It seems to me that most people do not realize its importance and would find absurd my comparison with the wanton destruction of a neighbor's property.
7
@SL
I agree entirely. Federal Election Commissionaire Ellen Weintraub previously tweeted that “It is illegal for any person for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign nation in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about ‘foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence.’ They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America’s. Anyone who solicits of accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation." No quid pro quo is necessary for Trump's solicitation to be illegal.
16
We heard it from Michael Cohen (remember him?) first. To paraphrase, he said that Trump speaks in code, and if you know the code, then you know what's he telling you to do, he doesn't have to spell it out, because it's already understood.
Zelensky was also speaking in code, as Dr. Pinker's analysis of the existing transcript shows. Trump understood Zelensky's code and he understood Trump's. They have both subsequently lied about what happened in that conversation, and we know it and they know it.
If Trump escapes impeachment by the shade of an interpretation on a single word, "though," all those actively seeking justice will have failed to do their job, just as Mueller in the end failed to do his.
57
@sunandrain - or as Chairman Schfif said, Trump speaks like a mobster engaged in a shakedown.
"Mr. Sondland texted back that there was no quid pro quo, adding, “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”"
Perhaps no quid pro quo (QPQ)--in those words.
But QPQ doesn't need the words--as Cohen testified. He got the message and was rewarded--at least paid---without the words.
Words are uttered, pronounced. But "what is said" is a matter of interpretation and inference--by intelligent, logical interpreters--at least as intelligent as Cohen.
"Sub Rosa" refers to action "under the rose" an ancient symbol of secrecy--so now "under the table"--hidden, nothing written--but a contract nevertheless (unconscionable bargains aside).
The Greeks had a word for sub rosa language --"hyponoia"--under thought or meaning.
Note the connection to "understand" and even to "substance"--the content of a message!
5
Pinker is not saying anything that we didn't already know.
@D M The truth bears repeating. Quite a few times, if necessary. In this case, it looks rather necessary . . .
9
@D M
No, but he is offering a linguistically relevant argument in a systematic fashion. That is meaningful and useful.
9
@D M: Well, "we" knew it, by a kind of circular reasoning, but "they" are still denying it, and the good professor spells out, in terms of his area of expertise, why we are right and they are wrong. It's another feature of human communication that it's usually worth repeating things, with slight variations to keep it interesting...
3
That said, isn't this whole quid pro quo business a GOP red herring? And a smelly one at that?
It is my understanding that you don't even need to have a quid pro quo for this to be illegal. Just the act of asking a foreign leader with help "investigating" a political opponent is illegal, in essence asking another government for something of value for your campaign.
Just because Trump does it in public, doesn't mean it's okay. Indeed, most of what he does in public these days isn't okay. And I think the GOP, with all their talking points, know it.
359
@avrds The are too scared of being attacked by this so-called president if they stand by (abandoned) moral principles. Their jobs - as well as tax cuts and packing the Supreme Court - are all that count for these weasels. It is so sad to think of people who took an oath of office to defend and protect this country, only defending and protecting themselves, and this ignorant, malicious "man" in the White House. Shame on all of them!
18
@avrds - The Mueller Report concluded that opposition research was not legally a "thing of value".
AG Barr relied on that for the same legal conclusion that blocked FBI & DoJ investigations.
I wish some media would make this point.
2
I loved reading this analysis. I found a new hobby - conversational analysis.
5
One hates the feeling of being "beaten to the punch," but this happens to me a lot, seemingly. Several years ago, responding to a cardiac fitness article, I proposed in a Times comment that communities build outdoor dedicated stairway structures in park areas just for climbing (and views, social interaction, etc.), and if inventive design would be involved, aesthetic effects. I got a lukewarm 10 or so "agrees," and lost my motivation to promote the idea more aggressively. A few years later, a multi-million dollar version of my idea is executed in Hudson Yards.
More recently, I have barraged the this forum with critiques of the corrupt ideology and dogma of "meritocracy," observing how it has entailed an Animal Farm style revolution less about rooting out unjust and oppressive social hierarchies than substituting a new, similarly corrupt one. Typically: 3 or 4 "agrees"; now Daniel Markovits reproduces the argument.
In this case I cannot corroborate, but it's shocking that last night I watched several videos of the Clinton "meaning of 'is'" episode, brainstorming how to present a comparison to Trump's veiled transactionality in the Ukraine conversation. Now this appears. In this case there is little sting, though, because I'm certain a great many of us were already thinking the exact same thing.
3
BTW, (not that it's very important now) I probably understated the timing on the stairway proposal: I posted it here around 2008; the Hudson Yards project was several years after that.
But on this "conversation analysis" matter, I'm certainly hoping it will be handled thoroughly to achieve clarity & justice in the Trump-Ukraine case, & establish a very clear standard/precedent for other duress, "offer that cannot -or cannot easily or safely- be refused," transactions. Obviously I have in mind asymmetrical power situations involving sexual favors & careers as in the Weinstein case. As many commenters here observe, invoking Michael Cohen, it's to a large extent about understanding "codes" & how certain people use them. The Trump-Weinstein similarity speaks for itself.
But on the "Anxiety of Unacknowledged Influence" (Bloom) & Times comments: It may be time to institute something like a copyright mechanism, instituting protocols for citing comments, however informal or anonymous.
We've all seen our ideas/analyses provided gratis here re-presented by columnists, scholars & others, implicitly as original. Though they of course could have these ideas independently, we have to assume they follow these fora & get ideas this way.
For me it's gratifying to see some "agrees"; we accept that compensates our effort beyond the contribution's intrinsic purpose: enriching the conversation & possibly influencing policy. But the pros getting all credit may be a bit too "Winner Take All."
3
A citation system could involve some form of abbreviating article titles and numbering comments. So a citation could look something like "10/7/19≈LinguistGuideCom207Smith"
A bit far-fetched, I'm sure, but in our plagiarism-sensitive age, where we believe giving credit is important, comments should arguably be treated as publications with actual authors who probably deserve credit. If for no other reason, possibly, than to offset the aforementioned "winner take all" dynamic. ("Winner Take All" by the way invokes Robert Frank's influential thesis, very relevant to the matter at hand.)
1
"publications with actual authors who probably deserve credit."
aka "intellectual property" (oops.)
1
The not-quite-verbatim "transcript" of the July 25, 2019 telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky is damning enough to warrant impeachment. I'll bet a dollar to doughnut hole that that is not the be-all and end-all to the content of the conversation. It is inconceivable that the Trump bootlickers and hacks didn't excise even more damaging statements by Trump than what has been revealed so far.
The House must not rest until the full extent of Trump's perfidy in this and many other "artful deals" is exposed.
172
@RH
Whatever Trump said to the President of the Ukraine
is not "perfidy".
Who says that the law Trump is accused of breaking
is Constitutional and who has proved it was a
Quid Pro Quo...threat ?
1
@John Brown
Actually, John, he is not solely accused of breaking a law; He is also accused of violating the actual language of Article 1, Section 9, of the United States Constitution. You may want to read the original text, the associated writings of the framers, as well as subsequent laws passed by successive Congresses over the years.
The Oath of Office requires the President to faithfully execute the laws and preserve, protect and defend the constitution; DJT seems to be having some difficulty with his accountability to that oath. Being President does not mean you get to do what ever you want.
9
@RH
RH, we already know the "transcript" ("verbatim", it is not) has some holes. Of course the President's followers will hinge everything on the redacted version; the Whistleblower was not there, and it follows that he was shown notes from someone who was there (likely more than one).
A second "whistleblower" who was there has come out to the intelligence IG. My bet is that this is one of the original sources (with his notes) that spoke to the first.
There are individuals who do not want to go to jail over the cover-up; in politics the cover-up is the key to proving the case, no crime-no cover-up needed.
This is only the beginning of what will be "exposed".
3
How quaint it was that Richard Nixon, who seemed sneaky, felt worried enough to say "I am not a crook." He was also concerned with words to employ pretty skilled speechwriters.
Trump has no such worry about apparent crookedness, and by all appearances, he consequently gets more support from his followers than Nixon did. His words are incoherent.
Yet somehow emotionally Trump connects with his followers better than just about all other US politicians.
3
How quaint it was that Richard Nixon, who seemed sneaky, felt worried enough to say "I am not a crook."
Trump has no such worries, and by all appearances, he consequently gets more support from his followers than Nixon got.
3
Brilliant! Dr.Pinker unpacks this conversation, thereby revealing the thuggish intent behind this allegedly innocuous request. It's truly an offer Mr. Zelensky cannot refuse.
30
Not a linguist here. The meaning was clear from the rough transcript as released. When you include the further evidence surrounding this matter, to say this conversation was not a quid pro quo is absurd.
70
"I did not have quid pro quo relations with that man." Perfect. This needs to be everywhere.
126
There is no need for a quid pro quo.
Trump invited a foreign power to intervene directly in a free US democratic election.
That is an impeachable offense.
We have no democracy left if we cannot agree on so clear a moral point.
472
@Paul McGlasson
True, and I don't think that Pinker would challenge that. All he is pointing out is that the 'nqpq' defense doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
47
@IgnatzAndMehitabel
What you write here is true - but not necessarily obvious. When I wrote to my Republican senator about the situation, his response was that he frankly did not see a "quid pro quo" in the released document and that all of this was a distraction from Congress doing the work that it is supposed to be doing. So, if someone as educated as my senator can shrug it off because it lacks quid pro quo standards, clearly more education is needed on both matters.
19
And he did so in front of the media and millions of Americans watching. In any other Democracy this should have been already disqualifying to even run for office. This system is broken deeply.
23
Linguists usually interpret recordings or verbatim transcripts, which we don't have at the moment. The speech-acts that Pinker interprets may never have happened.
1
@Azure
It's the best we have, and was probably put in the most favorable light for Trump. I expect the recording to be much worse.
10
This analysis is exactly on point. When I kept hearing "no quid pro quo" from Trump's Republican defenders, I thought to myself, "True, as long as you do not speak or understand English!"
My next move was, literally, to seek the dictionary definition of the adverb "though." How can anyone not see a quid pro quo when reading or hearing a transcript of this conversation? Trump is leveraging tax payer-funded, congressionally appropriated funds for his political purposes. If that is not impeachable, there is no limit to the corruption that this president will be allowed to perpetrate on the nation.
Mueller was unwilling to conclude "collusion" and felt that no smoking gun among the myriad Russia-Trump campaign interactions constituted conspiracy. I see it very differently. If people actually read the Mueller report rather than listen to the sanitized and inaccurately summarized Barr version, the evidence for collusion is incontrovertible. We need not even go as far as obstruction of justice charges, which are clearly evident as well.
No wonder so few have faith in our legal system.
95
@Incredulous The law actually does NOT require a quid pro quo. This linguistic analysis is just another way to muddy the field and confuse people. In its own way simply more Republican propaganda. A simple “don’t ask” is what the law says.
12
@Incredulous - good points.
I'd like to know if Zelenski knew that the $400 million in US military aid was withheld. That's an important fact.
@Bill Wolfe why? It increases the pressure on Zelenski, sure, but the “You want Javelins, we need you to do us a favor, though” aspect of the conversation is itself sufficient.
Very well done. I will* find this analysis useful, I feel certain. Thank you, Dr Pinker.
* Distinct from "shall."
6
Wonderful analysis of the conversation. I hope that the defenders of Trump, will be unable, in good conscience, to continue to continue to deny what is plain to see.
24
@Sams
What good conscience?
2