Former prosecutors say Mueller statement violated American Bar Association rule

[OKTexas]

There isn't an accused until someone has been indicted, shit for brains. Apparently you belief a prosecutor is allowed to denigrate a person who isn't even under suspicion.

So why are you citing that ABA rule?

And how did Mueller denigrate Trump?

Mueller belongs to the ABA,

But he is not prosecuting Trump.

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

His "could not exonerate" comment would qualify under this rule. I don't think you're stupid, quit acting like it.

.

No it wouldn't. It's a factual statement about his investigation finding. The ABA rule that's being complained about by the OP isn't about making simple factual statements. It's about adding commentary to stoke the flames.

Allowed: "The accused committed all four murders of these children, based on our evidence."

Not allowed: "These were the must terrible crimes I've ever seen! What kind of sick, deranged person does this to children!?! It shouldn't be surprising that it was this person, though. This guy is a known faggot who slept with over 100 men in the past four years. Oh, and many of them were black men. He's a sick, interracial pervert and we're going to throw the book at him!"

Actually, neither would be allowed if the person is not charged.

.

 

[easyt65]

Mueller violated that rule, after declaring no collusion, no decision on obstruction, to incite the Trump-hating Congress members into proceeding with Impeachment.

He IS, after all, the 'Insurance Policy', and this was his last chance to ensure he delivered on that 'policy'...

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, and he violated DOJ regulations.

He violated DOJ regulations by making the report, then he violated ABA rules by verbally stating something already stated in the report.

He violated DOJ regulations both times.

What next, wearing his watch upside down to become a violation of bro-code?

What is your fucking point, dumbass? Do you believe violating DOJ regulations is something to laugh about?

I believe you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Mueller didn't violate DOJ regulations.

He clearly did, you brain dead moron.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There isn't an accused until someone has been indicted, shit for brains. Apparently you belief a prosecutor is allowed to denigrate a person who isn't even under suspicion.

So why are you citing that ABA rule?

And how did Mueller denigrate Trump?

Mueller belongs to the ABA,

But he is not prosecuting Trump.

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

His "could not exonerate" comment would qualify under this rule. I don't think you're stupid, quit acting like it.

.

No it wouldn't. It's a factual statement about his investigation finding. The ABA rule that's being complained about by the OP isn't about making simple factual statements. It's about adding commentary to stoke the flames.

Allowed: "The accused committed all four murders of these children, based on our evidence."

Not allowed: "These were the must terrible crimes I've ever seen! What kind of sick, deranged person does this to children!?! It shouldn't be surprising that it was this person, though. This guy is a known faggot who slept with over 100 men in the past four years. Oh, and many of them were black men. He's a sick, interracial pervert and we're going to throw the book at him!"

A special prosecutor is not supposed to "hint" at a crime like Mueller did. Either there was a crime or there wasn't.

There was absolutely no reason to call for a press announcement unless you were going to change something from what you said before. While he didn't change the basic words, what he did do is frame it differently to imply guilt.

Proper way: I could not conclude Obstruction one way or the other. That will be the job of the attorney general.

Improper way: I could not find enough evidence to say that the President didn't commit Obstruction.

It's an extremely bias comment.

 

[bripat9643]

There isn't an accused until someone has been indicted, shit for brains. Apparently you belief a prosecutor is allowed to denigrate a person who isn't even under suspicion.

So why are you citing that ABA rule?

And how did Mueller denigrate Trump?

Mueller belongs to the ABA,

But he is not prosecuting Trump.

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

His "could not exonerate" comment would qualify under this rule. I don't think you're stupid, quit acting like it.

.

No it wouldn't. It's a factual statement about his investigation finding. The ABA rule that's being complained about by the OP isn't about making simple factual statements. It's about adding commentary to stoke the flames.

Allowed: "The accused committed all four murders of these children, based on our evidence."

Not allowed: "These were the must terrible crimes I've ever seen! What kind of sick, deranged person does this to children!?! It shouldn't be surprising that it was this person, though. This guy is a known faggot who slept with over 100 men in the past four years. Oh, and many of them were black men. He's a sick, interracial pervert and we're going to throw the book at him!"

"I can't prove you're not a child molester" is a factual statement. It's also disparaging.

Here's another factual statement: You're a sleazy lying brain damaged scum bucket.

 

[bripat9643]

Not only is there no criminal investigation (hence no breach) Mueller resigned and now can say anything he wants

If there's no criminal investigation, then why were 5 people indicted and convicted?

 

[rightwinger]

Was one of the Prosecutors Rudy G or Chris Christie?

 

[Lewdog]

Watch all the leftwing douchebags in this forum defend Mueller's behavior, which the ABA code specifically prohibits:

Former prosecutors say Mueller statement violated American Bar Association rule

His final report and a statement on May 29 by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller surrounded a key finding of “no Trump-Moscow conspiracy” with innuendo and loaded language, news analysts and prosecutors said.

Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct states: “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

Prosecutors and pundits alike said Robert Mueller shredded that rule at his May 29 press conference.

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

The Federalist reported that “multiple federal agents and prosecutors” expressed dismay at the former FBI director’s statement.​

Sounds legit except for the fact Mueller's case was not a criminal one because he was following DoJ rules against indicting the President. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Mueller 'report' is in shambles today. It was discovered that it intentionally and deceitfully EDITED OUT parts of testimony in order to spin it as obstruction and negative against the president. The entire report is now in question.

 

[peach174]

The Mueller 'report' is in shambles today. It was discovered that it intentionally and deceitfully EDITED OUT parts of testimony in order to spin it as obstruction and negative against the president. The entire report is now in question.

When was this reported?
Link please.

 

[bripat9643]

So why are you citing that ABA rule?

And how did Mueller denigrate Trump?

Mueller belongs to the ABA,

But he is not prosecuting Trump.

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

His "could not exonerate" comment would qualify under this rule. I don't think you're stupid, quit acting like it.

.

No it wouldn't. It's a factual statement about his investigation finding. The ABA rule that's being complained about by the OP isn't about making simple factual statements. It's about adding commentary to stoke the flames.

Allowed: "The accused committed all four murders of these children, based on our evidence."

Not allowed: "These were the must terrible crimes I've ever seen! What kind of sick, deranged person does this to children!?! It shouldn't be surprising that it was this person, though. This guy is a known faggot who slept with over 100 men in the past four years. Oh, and many of them were black men. He's a sick, interracial pervert and we're going to throw the book at him!"

A special prosecutor is not supposed to "hint" at a crime like Mueller did. Either there was a crime or there wasn't.

There was absolutely no reason to call for a press announcement unless you were going to change something from what you said before. While he didn't change the basic words, what he did do is frame it differently to imply guilt.

Proper way: I could not conclude Obstruction one way or the other. That will be the job of the attorney general.

Improper way: I could not find enough evidence to say that the President didn't commit Obstruction.

It's an extremely bias comment.

Actually, he shouldn't even have said that. He shouldn't have even filed the report if there were no indictments.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mueller belongs to the ABA,

But he is not prosecuting Trump.

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

His "could not exonerate" comment would qualify under this rule. I don't think you're stupid, quit acting like it.

.

No it wouldn't. It's a factual statement about his investigation finding. The ABA rule that's being complained about by the OP isn't about making simple factual statements. It's about adding commentary to stoke the flames.

Allowed: "The accused committed all four murders of these children, based on our evidence."

Not allowed: "These were the must terrible crimes I've ever seen! What kind of sick, deranged person does this to children!?! It shouldn't be surprising that it was this person, though. This guy is a known faggot who slept with over 100 men in the past four years. Oh, and many of them were black men. He's a sick, interracial pervert and we're going to throw the book at him!"

A special prosecutor is not supposed to "hint" at a crime like Mueller did. Either there was a crime or there wasn't.

There was absolutely no reason to call for a press announcement unless you were going to change something from what you said before. While he didn't change the basic words, what he did do is frame it differently to imply guilt.

Proper way: I could not conclude Obstruction one way or the other. That will be the job of the attorney general.

Improper way: I could not find enough evidence to say that the President didn't commit Obstruction.

It's an extremely bias comment.

Actually, he shouldn't even have said that. He shouldn't have even filed the report if there were no indictments.

Agreed. Just trying to show Stormy how biased his address was. He might as well have said "I hate Trump, but I couldn't get him on anything. You try!"

 

[iceberg]

Watch all the leftwing douchebags in this forum defend Mueller's behavior, which the ABA code specifically prohibits:

Former prosecutors say Mueller statement violated American Bar Association rule

His final report and a statement on May 29 by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller surrounded a key finding of “no Trump-Moscow conspiracy” with innuendo and loaded language, news analysts and prosecutors said.

Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct states: “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

Prosecutors and pundits alike said Robert Mueller shredded that rule at his May 29 press conference.

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

The Federalist reported that “multiple federal agents and prosecutors” expressed dismay at the former FBI director’s statement.​

Mueller is not prosecuting Donald, and Donald is not charged with wrongdoing at this time.

Then he is still innocent by our own laws.

 

[bripat9643]

Watch all the leftwing douchebags in this forum defend Mueller's behavior, which the ABA code specifically prohibits:

Former prosecutors say Mueller statement violated American Bar Association rule

His final report and a statement on May 29 by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller surrounded a key finding of “no Trump-Moscow conspiracy” with innuendo and loaded language, news analysts and prosecutors said.

Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct states: “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

Prosecutors and pundits alike said Robert Mueller shredded that rule at his May 29 press conference.

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

The Federalist reported that “multiple federal agents and prosecutors” expressed dismay at the former FBI director’s statement.​

Mueller is not prosecuting Donald, and Donald is not charged with wrongdoing at this time.

Then Mueller violated DOJ policy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mueller is a lying snake. Despite trying to coerce Trump associates by charging them with years-old crimes that had nothing to do with the special prosecutor's mandate, Mueller could not find one shred of evidence that Trump or any of his top people colluded with Russians to fix the election. Even worse, he refused to investigate clear evidence of Russian collusion and illegal domestic political activity by high-ranking Democrats.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Mueller 'report' is in shambles today. It was discovered that it intentionally and deceitfully EDITED OUT parts of testimony in order to spin it as obstruction and negative against the president. The entire report is now in question.

When was this reported?
Link please.

Devin Nunes calls 'fraud,' citing difference between Mueller report, Dowd transcript

 

[edward37]

The Mueller 'report' is in shambles today. It was discovered that it intentionally and deceitfully EDITED OUT parts of testimony in order to spin it as obstruction and negative against the president. The entire report is now in question.

When was this reported?
Link please.

Devin Nunes calls 'fraud,' citing difference between Mueller report, Dowd transcript

Nunes calling fraud is a joke That POS sat on his hand in congress kissing trumps ass for 2 years

 

[BluesLegend]

The Mueller 'report' is in shambles today. It was discovered that it intentionally and deceitfully EDITED OUT parts of testimony in order to spin it as obstruction and negative against the president. The entire report is now in question.

When was this reported?
Link please.

Devin Nunes calls 'fraud,' citing difference between Mueller report, Dowd transcript

Nunes calling fraud is a joke That POS sat on his hand in congress kissing trumps ass for 2 years

You cannot dispute the facts, noted.

 

[peach174]

It's going to be interesting to see Barr's report on this.
It's more than likely one of two things.
Either the DNC and Hillary's campaign worked with the UK and Russian's to overthrow Trump or this was a hoax done by Putin.
This latter sounds like something he would do and then sit back laughing his ass off watching us bicker and spend millions on it over nothing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Watch all the leftwing douchebags in this forum defend Mueller's behavior, which the ABA code specifically prohibits:

Former prosecutors say Mueller statement violated American Bar Association rule

His final report and a statement on May 29 by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller surrounded a key finding of “no Trump-Moscow conspiracy” with innuendo and loaded language, news analysts and prosecutors said.

Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct states: “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

Prosecutors and pundits alike said Robert Mueller shredded that rule at his May 29 press conference.

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

The Federalist reported that “multiple federal agents and prosecutors” expressed dismay at the former FBI director’s statement.​

Muellers entire team belongs in Levenworth