Former prosecutors say Mueller statement violated American Bar Association rule

[caddo kid]

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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

 

[WEATHER53]

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.​

Maybe, but what's the worst that can happen to Mueller? He be disbarred? Do you really think he really cares at this age?

I think you got this. He knows (probably knew)he’ll be in trouble but he had the big time shot of all time and took it.

 

[bripat9643]

Mueller is a hack whose job was to smear the President's image.

Two years and he found nothing on President Trump, yet refused to investigate the obvious abuses of power by the Hussein administration when they spied on the Trump campaign before and after the election.

That's what Barr is going to do now.

He's barking up the wrong tree. Investigations were legal Sorry

They were blatantly illegal, shit for brains.

 

[skye]

Mueller.....Black Hat till the end.


We all know that...what a traitor what scum how can he live with himself.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

In his address, Mueller stated that he could not charge Trump based on the DOJ's standards. In other words, he inferred that he might have charged him otherwise.

Sorry, but I do see that as heightening public condemnation of.

He said precisely the same thing in his report.

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.

 

[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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

We've been attacking that scumbag Mueller since the day he released the report.

 

[bripat9643]

In his address, Mueller stated that he could not charge Trump based on the DOJ's standards. In other words, he inferred that he might have charged him otherwise.

Sorry, but I do see that as heightening public condemnation of.

He said precisely the same thing in his report.

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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

In his address, Mueller stated that he could not charge Trump based on the DOJ's standards. In other words, he inferred that he might have charged him otherwise.

Sorry, but I do see that as heightening public condemnation of.

He said precisely the same thing in his report.

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?

 

[caddo kid]

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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

We've been attacking that scumbag Mueller since the day he released the report.

So, you are one of the 'former prosecutors' that is JUST NOW bitching about Mueller's report, ~40 days after it was released?

What in fucking Hell took you so fucking long? Taking a fucking nap for 39 fucking days?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

/——/ Mueller testifies Iraq has WMDs
Watch Robert Mueller Tell Congress His Investigation Shows Iraq has WMD | Mark Simone | 710 WOR

 

[bripat9643]

In his address, Mueller stated that he could not charge Trump based on the DOJ's standards. In other words, he inferred that he might have charged him otherwise.

Sorry, but I do see that as heightening public condemnation of.

He said precisely the same thing in his report.

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?

 

[caddo kid]

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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

/——/ Mueller testifies Iraq has WMDs
Watch Robert Mueller Tell Congress His Investigation Shows Iraq has WMD | Mark Simone | 710 WOR

WMDs? wrong thread, ass hole ..............

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

/——/ Why Mueller won’t testify Watch How Bad Robert Mueller Is As a Witness | Mark Simone | 710 WOR

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.​

Well, let's take a look: the redacted report was released on April 18, 2019.
Mueller spoke just a couple of days ago.
When Mueller spoke this week he stated the EXACT same thing as what is contained within the report.
So, I must ask; why are these ass holes only now having their brains explode, ONLY because the same words that that were public knowledge ~40 days ago just so happened to be heard from a human's mouth (Mueller) two days ago?
That tells me that whomever is only now bitching about the verbiage NEVER READ THE GODDAMN REPORT.

Those whining ass pussies are lucky that Mueller opened his mouth this week, spilled the beans, and stated the EXACT same thing that is in the report that was released ~40 days ago.

Those sorry ass bitching pussies are ONLY ~40 days behind the fucking curve. LOFL .............

/——/ Mueller testifies Iraq has WMDs
Watch Robert Mueller Tell Congress His Investigation Shows Iraq has WMD | Mark Simone | 710 WOR

WMDs? wrong thread, ass hole ..............

/——/ It leads to mueller’s credibility or lack of...azzhole

 

[Stormy Daniels]

He said precisely the same thing in his report.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

If he's not prosecuting, then the code prohibits him from making "any extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

How fucking stupid are you?

There is no "accused". So there is no infraction by Mueller, stupid.

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.

.

 

[Tehon]

There is no "accused". So there is no infraction by Mueller, stupid.

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.

.

There is no criminal case, therefore the rule being discussed here is irrelevant.

I cited the rule. There is no ambiguity in it. What's the problem?

 

[Lesh]

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

 

[Stormy Daniels]

There is no "accused". So there is no infraction by Mueller, stupid.

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!"

 

[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.

.

There is no criminal case, therefore the rule being discussed here is irrelevant.

I cited the rule. There is no ambiguity in it. What's the problem?

OK, I guess I misjudged you. Carry on.

.