How's That for Precedent?

During a private phone call to former staffers in his administration president Barack Obama weighed in on the DOJ's decision to not press charges against Michael Flynn. The contents of the call were leaked, and it turns out that Mr. Obama delivered himself during the call of some embarrassing asseverations.

In the first sentence of the following excerpt he says three things that according to law professor Jonathan Turley are patently false:

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.

Turley responded on Twitter with this bit of acerbic analysis:

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...

That's true. He was accused of lying to the FBI which is a crime, but it's not perjury unless he was under oath which he wasn't (See https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/here for Turley's analysis of the Flynn case). Moreover, it apparently slipped Mr. Obama's mind that Bill Clinton managed to get off scot-free after committing perjury.

Anyway, Mr. Flynn was accused of violating the Logan Act about which Turley states,

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 [for dismissing cases like Flynn's]

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?

In other words, Mr. Obama simply doesn't know what he's talking about. I am not trying to be unkind, but Mr. Obama would do well to retire to his family room and watch ESPN reruns or leaf through old copies of Sports Illustrated, two of his favorite pastimes, even while president. When he ventures to speak out on public affairs he just causes people to wonder how he ever got to be a professor of law, much more president of the United States.