Read the Rulebook, Shankapotamus

Eric Holder’s recent statements about KSM’s NYC trial may run afoul of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct

By Rick Saunders
America’s Right

Well, the Marxist stupidity that has for the past ten months passed for “hope” and “change” has now metastasized into criminal lunacy.

The Obama administration’s decision to transfer 9/11 terrorist enemy combatants from the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility in Cuba–not a part of the United States, for those without the official White House map–to Manhattan, purportedly to show that “we are better than them,” may be pretty darned bad, but the conduct in advance of the trial itself is in fact beyond lunacy. Indeed, Attorney General Eric “We Will Convict and Execute, as Failure is Not an Option” Holder’s recent public statements about the case may well have already set the stage for the dismissal of the charges.

Stay with me here.

To begin with, just this past Wednesday Attorney General Holder testified in open session before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the process virtually guaranteeing to incredulous senators from both parties that, among others, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be convicted. His boss said essentially the same thing — from Asia, President Barack Obama maintained that he supported the decision to bring the Gitmo transient to New York City for trial, adding that “those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” Obama (or some CBS editor) quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed’s trial. “I’m not going to be in that courtroom,” Obama was quoting as saying. “That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”


And so who, exactly, will be in that courtroom? Perchance Eric Holder himself? You mean, the prosecutor who has already (as Mohammed’s lawyers will argue) so tainted the jury pool with “guarantees” of a conviction and assurances that the death penalty will be invoked that the trial will be a mere formality? That guy?

Memo to the masses: Holder is a lawyer and, as Attorney General, is the nation’s chief prosecuting attorney. And, as an attorney, he is bound–supposedly–by the rules of ethics, rules which are even more restrictive for prosecutors in criminal cases. These being the facts, perhaps we should turn to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 3.8 addresses the “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.” The rule states, in material part (emphasis mine):

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

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.

And so, what does Rule 3.6 say? Glad you asked:

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

When these two ethical principles are taken together–a difficult enough task to manage given the players on the field–and superimposed over the recent public comments of Holder and his boss, what emerges is the disturbing potential that, by publicly stating that failure (i.e., an acquittal) was “not an option” and that “the death penalty will be applied,” Holder and Obama may well have set the stage for a dismissal of the charges.

Earth to Holder: Can you say “prosecutorial misconduct?”After all, where now can that poor soul Khalid Sheikh Mohammed get a fair trial and an impartial jury of his peers? Berkeley? Dearborn? Tehran?

Before you scoff at this potential, consider what would have been the reaction if, instead of Barack Obama’s Attorney General making these statements, they had been made by John Ashcroft under President George W. Bush.

I know. It’s a stretch to even consider it. That’s because unlike the current president, George W. Bush–despite all of his faults–thought about the safety and security of the United States of America and the American people first. Everything else, including politics, public relations and personal effect, came later. What a stark, stark difference.

Rick Saunders is a freelance writer who splits his time between endeavors in southern California and the American southwest. He began writing for America’s Right in December 2008.



  1. John Feeny says:

    When has 'professional conduct' ever played a part in the policy decisions of this administration?

  2. John Feeny says:

    Something tells me, Rick, that if things go down in the manner in which you present them, that the people of this country may reach the boling point of no return. Which is, in the end, a no-win scenario for the American people….if KSM goes free and the people merely wince and accept it, we lose; if the people rise up, it gives the Messiah exactly what he needs to declare martial law. All I can say is this: from even before this maniac was elected, I've been stating that it's all going to come down to the decisons of the military. While I understand that they're constitutionally-bound to protect the president, it's pretty evident that he has nothing but contempt for them. This is going to be very interesting.

  3. Gail B says:

    Ah, once again Obama-Soetoro has been given the opportunity to bask in the limelight of the MSM (much-slanted-media) to show his decisiveness (and questionable leadership) in matters that do not concern him and which he should not be publicly opining.

    Obama has a law degree, doesn't he? And the same for Eric Holder? Both should be disbarred at the very least! This is unreal!

  4. Roses,WA says:

    By now there must be enough people in the jury pool of NYC who tune out everything Obama and have not heard these 'prejudicial' statements. I know I have, and wouldn't know about these comments without this helpful blog.

    But the idea that Barry and his bud Eric are like royalty and not subject to the same rules, yeah, that's pretty obvious to most of us by now. Unless those rules benefit him, and releasing war criminals as a benefit is really unAmerican. But executing them as circus, (being a little short on bread for buying votes in 2010,)might get the Dems through the midterm elections.

  5. Gail B says:

    John, I totally agree with you–remember the riots after the King beating years ago?

    SC Senator Lindsey Graham absolutely makes it clear that Eric Holder is an idiot and skewers him over why KSM is being tried in our courts. Watch him attack Holder at this link:

    Holder is at a loss for words, and Graham tells Holder, "I think that is a perversion of the justice system."

  6. Anonymous says:

    Since this is a trial in an American Court system, I wonder if the Defense will use this statement of Holder before the Senate Committee as proof of the inability of their client to get a fair trail and he will be freed on a technicality.

    Every day this administration blatantly defies the constitution by their actions either because they intend to do so to bring us down or because they are just stupid. It is a sad commentary of our day that we have so many evil minds intent on destroying a system of government that has given hope to all and a beacon for freedom.

  7. Speaking of 'rule' books says:

    Jim Neugent A Coach In Childress, Texas Writes To ABC Network

    Jim Writes:

    My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called 'THE PRACTICE.' In last
    nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers decided she
    is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so she could marry her 'partner.'

    I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.

    My original message was:

    ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. ' THE PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so typical of
    your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had
    convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a gay basher.'

    Read the first chapter of Romans ( that's in the Bible); and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it….. He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)

    –Jim Neugent

    Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:

    How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says 'All Men are Created equal,' and try treating them that way for a change!

    Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of

    Jim Neugent's second response to ABC:

    Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I
    hit a nerve. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will be
    praying for you.

    Jim Neugent

  8. John Feeny says:

    As Jim has found out, those who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of all.

  9. Anonymous says:

    “The Manhattan Declaration”, a Declaration that is best summed up in the last paragraph:

    "Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

  10. John Feeny says:

    Amen, Anonymous.

    Though methinks come April 15th, Caesar may well not have rendered to him nearly as much as he thinks he will.

  11. Randy Wills says:

    In regards to ABC's response to Jim Neugent's reference to the Scriptures, I assume that they would also declare the Constitution to be "archaic" and advise us to get our noses out of that as well.

    You can see what we're up against.


Speak Your Mind