Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley fired back at former President Barack Obama after the latter claimed that the Department of Justice dropping all charges against General Michael Flynn signifies that the “rule of law is at risk.”
“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said on Friday, according to Yahoo News. “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. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic— not just institutional.”
Turley, however, was not having any of it. The law professor, who describes himself as a liberal, said that Obama’s comments were wrong for a number of reasons. He added that they show just how invested the former president was in Flynn’s case. “It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury,” Turley tweeted. “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.”
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
Turley went on to say that contrary to what Obama claimed, there actually is a precedent for the Justice Department’s sudden decision. In fact, Obama’s own attorney general had done exactly the same thing. “Finally, there is precedent,” Turley wrote. “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.”
“The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case,” he continued. “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?”
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
“While people of good faith can certainly disagree on the wisdom or basis for the Flynn motion, it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion,” Turley later wrote on his website.
This just goes to show how bitter and ignorant Obama really is. He’s furious that the injustices that his administration did to Flynn are being exposed, and he’s resorted to peddling lies as he throws a public temper tantrum in the hopes of distracting the public from what’s really going on. Obama might want to think twice before he opens his mouth on this subject again, however, because even liberals are not buying what he’s selling anymore.
This piece was written by PoliZette Staff on May 11, 2020. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.
Read more at LifeZette:
House Democrat introduces $100B TRACE Act aimed at compromising the most fundamental rights of every American
These RINOs are forming ‘Republicans for Biden’
Michael Rapaport launches disgusting Mother’s Day attack on Melania Trump