In a phone call to members of the Obama Alumni Association last week, former President Barack Obama said that the DOJ’s decision to drop the meaningless case against Michael Flynn was putting the “rule of law” in jeopardy. The remarks drew predictable praise from the Obama-adoring media, which has already decided that the Flynn decision means that we’re sliding inexorably into a dictatorship under Trump and AG William Barr. But then again, this media has been predicting such a dictatorship from the first moments of Trump’s presidency, so this was not a shocking take.
“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said in the call. “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 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.”
But constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says that Obama is mistaken about a great many things.
“It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury,” Turley wrote. “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.”
Turley said that if Obama wanted to find precedent for what happened with Flynn last week, he would need look no further than his own Justice Department.
“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,” Turley 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?”
Turley concluded: “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.”
Frankly, the very idea of the president who wrote DACA and DAPA, signed Obamacare, and used the IRS as his private political destruction machine waxing concerned over the “rule of law” is awfully rich. We’re used to Democrat hypocrisy, but come on, Barack: You’re making yourself look silly.
