Obama Says Gen. Flynn’s Dismissal Endangers Rule Of Law

Why do liberals claim manipulating an innocent man into admitting false statements and using threats against his family for a plea to convict him – is lawful? And how could this possibly build up the Rule of Law?

Obama Says Gen. Flynn's Dismissal Endangers Rule Of Law

“No free man shall be is imprisoned, except by legal judgment of his peers or by law of the land.” – Magna Carta

The Canada Free Press

The latest shocking development from the Mueller Investigation’s collapse is the complete vindication of Gen. Michael Flynn, when the DOJ dismissed his case. Predictably, liberals wept and gnashed teeth while prophesying the Rule of Law’s demise. Are they correct?


The Rule of Law stresses that precepts supersede personalities. And settled procedure, built on common law principles, insures fair process, which is irreplaceable for a just society. This Anglo-American ideal is the ideological foundation of US law and the single best justification for a Constitution.

Writers John Locke and Rev Samuel Rutherford, whose Lex Rex – ‘King Law’, championed this standard, as Locke warned – “wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” The Rule of Law theory led to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which remain the greatest restatements of Natural Law political principles since the Decalogue.


Now Obama warns Flynn’s dismissal endangers the Rule of Law. Yet, does it matter prosecutors originally cleared Flynn? FBI agents, lost in grandiose self-deceit, colluded to ‘save America’ from Trump. Flynn was targeted adjunct to Crossfire Hurricane, over Trump’s supposed Russia ties. Yet, now the story leads back to Obama’s door!

Disturbingly, this story may reveal ‘Saint’ Barrack extracting revenge against Flynn, once fired by Barack. Obvious question – Doesn’t Obama care about innocent folk incarcerated, bankrupted, with reputations destroyed? Is this James Comey’s Higher Loyalty in action? Wasn’t Flynn’s conviction a bigger risk to the Rule of Law than anything else? For, what justice is found in a contrived conviction of a real life patriot?

Since publishing on Higher Law, chief wrongdoer and former FBI head James Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership is NOT based on classic Natural Law, or Divine Justice. It’s short on law, so glorifies the vague bona fides of great leadership by humanist elites, stating,

“Dishonest leaders have the same ability to shape a culture, by showing their people dishonesty, corruption, and deception. A commitment to integrity and a higher loyalty to truth are what separate the ethical leader from those who just happen to occupy leadership roles. We cannot ignore the difference.”

This moralizing buffoon can’t imagine himself a liar even when sending goons after Gen Flynn without any criminal justification.


First, Flynn was misled. Approaching craftily, FBI stooges feign honor when actually seeking Flynn’s downfall. Agents concluded Flynn innocent, deciding to close his file. But Peter Strzok intervened to reverse, rewriting the initial interview with FBI strumpet Lisa Page. Flynn is then threatened with Logan Act charges and dissembling.

That no original Flynn crime existed, mentioned by DOJ, stating FBI “did not have “a legitimate investigative basis” as “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.”


The Flynn FBI meeting recalls Star Chamber, where the court sought confession under oath Ex officio for any crimes, using these to prosecute. But John Lilburne stated – “I am unwilling to answer any impertinent questions, for fear that with my answer, I may do myself hurt. This is not the way to get to Liberty,” leading to 5th Amendment Rights. Similar entrapment was used by the FBI.

But the DOJ wrote, in its motion to dismiss,

“In the case of Mr. Flynn, evidence shows his statements were not “material” to any viable counterintelligence investigation—or any investigation for that matter—initiated by the FBI. Indeed, the FBI itself had recognized it lacked sufficient basis to sustain its initial counterintelligence investigation by seeking to close that very investigation without even an interview of Mr. Flynn. … Having repeatedly found “no derogatory information” on Mr. Flynn the FBI’s draft “Closing Communication” made clear the FBI had found no basis to “predicate further investigative efforts…”

FBI notes from this case demand, “What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” This quote reveals improper, wholly illegitimate FBI motives. This is enough for dismissal on Prosecutorial Misconduct. Consider Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine asserting any evidence gleaned by illegal methods is tossed.


Even common criminals get Miranda warnings: “You’ve the right to remains silent.” Comey bragged he unfairly disadvantaged the new administration. If Flynn were a suspect, didn’t he have rights? Like the right to be informed? The right to leave, to an attorney, or to remain silent.


What about Flynn’s “lies”? Charged with misleading over Russia’s ambassador, a claim Flynn now disputes, and threatened with jail and his son’s prosecution. Selling his house, now broke, fearful for family, Flynn plead guilty.  Doesn’t it matter Trump’s “crime” was totally falsified?


Flynn’s Plea Withdrawal motion stated, “In truth, I never lied.” And, “I never would have plead guilty” had I known FBI agents said I had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception.” And, “I tried to ‘accept responsibility by admitting offenses I understood the government that I love, and trusted – said I committed.”


So is Flynn’s dismissal an attack on the Rule of Law? To the contrary, it celebrates Rule of Law Principles! Recall, Magna Carta states: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned…except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” John Lilburne swore, nemo tenetur seipsum accusare – “no man is bound to accuse himself.”

Why do liberals claim manipulating an innocent man into admitting false statements and using threats against his family for a plea to convict him – is lawful? And how could this possibly build up the Rule of Law?

%d bloggers like this: