Yeah, neither of these are happening. It’s a crime though. They should (not will) face criminal consequences, not just a disqualification.
(Edit: Just FYI, I originally copied your question, but “whom” is not correct here. Just use “who” if you don’t know how to use it. It doesn’t make people look smart. Anyway, “whom” is for the subject of the verb. “Who” here is performing the action of disqualification. “They disqualified whom” would be where “whom” is used. I don’t really care if people just use “who” all the time, but it really bothers me when people go out of their way to use “whom” but don’t actually know when to use it. It isn’t just for the end of the sentence.)
The one at the top of this chain did. The one I was responding to.
That page disagrees with you though. The thing being acted upon gets whom. That’s the rule. That entire page is just different situations where that can happen.
Disqualified by who?
Yeah, neither of these are happening. It’s a crime though. They should (not will) face criminal consequences, not just a disqualification.
(Edit: Just FYI, I originally copied your question, but “whom” is not correct here. Just use “who” if you don’t know how to use it. It doesn’t make people look smart. Anyway, “whom” is for the subject of the verb. “Who” here is performing the action of disqualification. “They disqualified whom” would be where “whom” is used. I don’t really care if people just use “who” all the time, but it really bothers me when people go out of their way to use “whom” but don’t actually know when to use it. It isn’t just for the end of the sentence.)
I love that you completely misread my comment (I never once said ‘disqualified’) and spent a great deal of effort to act like a pedantic grammar snob.
You’re wrong, by the way.
The one at the top of this chain did. The one I was responding to.
That page disagrees with you though. The thing being acted upon gets whom. That’s the rule. That entire page is just different situations where that can happen.