Liberal justice 'warned' Flynn-hating judge about partisanship

A former prosecutor, watching the U.S. Department of Justice run from its controversial prosecution of Michael Flynn, says the presiding judge must honor the prosecution’s wish to drop the case.

Ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr to cease its prosecution, the DOJ announced May 7 it was doing so, drawing praise or howls of protest depending on how one views President Trump's former national security advisor, who was unknowingly set up by FBI officials.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is drawing scrutiny after inviting amicus briefs about the case then, just hours later, appointing a former prosecutor to argue the case against Flynn before him.

In an op-ed published at Forbes.com, civil liberty attorney Michael Chenoweth warns that Judge Sullivan is ignoring a U.S. Supreme Court decision from just last week that denounced judges for court-solicited amicus briefs that demonstrate partiality.

The high court’s decision, a unanimous 9-0 ruling, was authored by liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She faulted the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for selectively seeking pro-immigration groups to comment on the case before it. Such a decision, the justice wrote, suggests an effort in “redirection” and “takeover” by the court when the court is restricted to decide the case by what is presented by the parties before them.

Former assistant district attorney Abraham Hamilton III, now general counsel at the American Family Association, says the judge’s invitation for amicus briefs gives “official cover” for groups that oppose Donald Trump to “smear” Flynn and “malign” Barr as a law breaker.

Hamilton points out that Judge Sullivan already inserted himself in the trial by accusing Flynn of “treason” from the bench, which leaves no doubt how the judge views the defendant and his case.

More