Nervous Obama claims the Flynn case “risks the rule of law,” Turley responds


Barack Obama says in a private call [somehow released] that rule of law is at risk in the Michael Flynn case. He wants Americans to think that telling the truth and exonerating an innocent man violates the rule of law when it actually does the opposite.

This is the offensive tactic used by Alinsky — always keep the enemy on the defensive.

Famed Professor Turley trashes his argument with little effort.


Talking with ex-staff members, Obama said the “rule of law is at risk” in the wake of what he called an unprecedented move by the Justice Department to drop charges against former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

It was leaked and probably staged.

He also called the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic as “an absolute chaotic disaster.”

Trump has done well but Obama wants people to confuse the chaos caused by the virus and the economy as caused by the President’s handling. The former president won’t complain about his buddies in China.


Reacting to the Justice Department’s move to end its case against Michael Flynn, Obama said 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, in a web talk with members of the Obama Alumni Association. Yahoo News reported this.

The facts show agents that then-NSA Flynn thought he was telling the truth or thought he was telling the truth. They then framed him and threatened him to get him to cop a plea.


Obama says about the Flynn case, “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,” Obama said, according to the report. “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.”

What Obama is saying is absurd. It sounds like he’s getting very nervous and inventing nonsense. And Flynn did not commit perjury.

There is also no precedent for the corruption of the prior administration or the coup against the President. Prominent George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley responded, see below.

Listen to Obama’s legerdemain:

Jonathan Turley found the former president’s comment “curious.”

Turley wrote on Twitter about Obama’s statement, “‘There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free’ was a ‘curious statement’ for several reasons.”

“First, ‘Flynn was not charged with perjury.’ 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,'” Turley wrote in a Twitter thread.

Turley also said, Obama’s comment “reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.”

Turley pointed out that he believes there is indeed precedent for what took place with Flynn.

“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. 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 asked.

In his essay linked to this tweet, Turley writes, “These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspected of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime.”


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments