Obama is not happy that the Department of Justice under William Barr has dropped the case against Michael Flynn.
He is even saying there is no precedent for such a thing.
FOX News reports:
Obama says ‘rule of law is at risk’ after DOJ dropped Michael Flynn case
Former President Barack Obama on Friday reacted to the Justice Department’s move to end its case against Michael Flynn by declaring that the “rule of law is at risk” — as new details emerge about what the former president knew about the case against Flynn in the last days of his administration.
“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said, according to Yahoo News, in a web talk with members of the Obama Alumni Association
“And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” he reportedly said. “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”
Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University took to Twitter and showed that Obama is wrong.
President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury… https://t.co/fWlSFWkp8S
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 9, 2020
Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 9, 2020
There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals….
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 9, 2020
The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case.That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 9, 2020
It looks like Turley wins that round!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.