"First and Foremost, Flynn Was Not Charged with Perjury" - Democrat Law Professor Turley Schools Obama on Legal Precedent Following "Leaked" Phone Call

Disgraced former President Barack Obama appears to be in a panic. General Flynn is now in the clear and the Durham investigation is ongoing. More documents are about to drop.

There are rumblings that former members of his FBI (e.g. FBI General Counsel James Baker) have flipped and are working with Durham.

Obama’s Deep State henchmen who set up General Flynn and the crooked politicians and media hacks who supported them are terrified.

An audio of former President Barack Obama, whose Administration spied on the Trump team and Administration, was released by deep state reporter Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News on Friday night.

In the “call” which appears totally set up, Obama is concerned about the rule of law.

Here is the transcript:

“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 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.”

Obviously, Obama is completely panicked with the news of his criminal spying on his political opposition.

On Saturday brilliant attorney and Democrat Jonathan Turley schooled former Harvard law student Obama on his leaked complaints against President Trump and legal precedent.

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. 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?

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

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

Apparently, Obama did not get much learnin’ from his days at Harvard Law.