Leftist Professor Destroys Barack Obama’s Rant

Leftist professor Jonathan Turley took on Barack Obama and his rant against the dismissal of the charges against Gen Michael Flynn.

In fact, constitutional scholar, Barack Obama did not even get the charges right.

Recent document releases show that Barack Obama discussed charging Flynn with violating the Logan Act, which became law in 1799 and has never been used successfully.

Many legal experts claim that the law is patently unconstitutional.

Obama is in a panic because documents that have been released show that Obama was aware of the Flynn case and may have actually been leading it.

In a text to her lover Peter Strzok, Lisa Page said that the White House was insisting on being informed of everything that was going on.  And there are many more documents about to be released and then, of course, there is John Durham and his investigation.

Deep State reporter Michael Isakoff released an audio recording of Obama:

“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said during a virtual discussion with members of the Obama Alumni Association. “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 the 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.”

Law professor slices and dices Obama’s comment:

Jonathan Turley tweeted: 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. 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. 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. the 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?

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

get the newsletter

Receive infrequent Floglegs updates about upcoming episodes and general news.