Are We Still Living Under the Rule of Law?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the rule of law. The United States is known for its government that runs on the rule of law and not the rule of man. Everyone in the nation is consider equal before the law. Some of us question if this is true because of the treatment given to certain powerful people in the nation, but we could still see them brought to justice.


            The rule of law was brought to the discussion last week after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped its case against retired Lt. General Michael Flynn. The federal judge still must sign off on the case, but everyone expects it to happen. General Flynn’s lead attorney, Sidney Powell, dropped a bombshell in an interview on Fox News today when she claimed that former President Barack Obama was involved in the plot to frame the General carried out by the DOJ and the FBI. Powell explained her claim as follows:

These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off that he was even the person being investigated. In fact, according to Comey’s testimony that’s attached to the exhibits they filed in the motion to dismiss, they just simply said, ‘we’d like to send a couple agents by to talk to you.’ …

The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FB, Clapper, Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting that day with President Obama….

            Barack Obama, of course, claims says otherwise. According to Yahoo News on Friday, this is what Obama is saying about the situation with General Flynn.

The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed – about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn.

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.

            Self-described liberal, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley disagreed with Obama’s claim that the “rule of law is at risk” with the Flynn case. Turley claims that Obama’s comments show that he was “personally invested … in the Flynn case.”

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.

            Turley continued his comments by saying that Obama was wrong about no precedent for the DOJ’s sudden decision. He explained that there is a specific rule that allows this motion, and the DOJ has used it in the past. He said that it was used in 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 said that it was entirely possible for “people of good faith” to disagree about the Flynn motion. However, “it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion.”