President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]

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.

Jonathan Turley: Western Journal

Jonathan Turley  "Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.”  Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder.  Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]
"The Obama statement is curious on various levels.  First, the exhaustive search may have been hampered by the fact that Flynn was never charged with perjury. He was charged with a single count of false statements to a federal investigator under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I previously wrote that the Justice Department should move to dismiss the case due to recently disclosed evidence and thus I was supportive of the decision of Attorney General Bill Barr.

"Second, there is ample precedent for this motion even though, as I noted in the column calling for this action, such dismissals are rare. " . . . 

Prof. Turley wrote this for The Hill on use of the Logan Act to prosecute Flynn:

Logan Act is the last refuge for the American prosecutorial scoundrel

Keep in mind that using the Logan Act against the incoming White House national security adviser would be not only patently unconstitutional but also positively ludicrous. There was nothing illegal in Flynn responding to diplomats upset about sanctions imposed on Russia days before the new administration. Trump himself stated that he wanted to reframe relations with Russia. The transcripts show Flynn encouraging the diplomats not to retaliate and saying that the administration would look at the situation.

And we know there are scoundrels aplenty in the Democrat Party. Recall the role of scoundrels facing Professor Turley in the Judge Kavanaugh confirmation hearings:
Constitutional Expert Testifies 'I Voted Against Trump,' Then Demolishes Impeachment

“I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” Turley said. “I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

Much more at the Tunnel Wall blog