We’re not sure what took them so long, but some on a full federal appeals court are concerned about Emmet Sullivan’s bias in the Kafkaesque Michael Flynn case.
Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the closest thing we’ll ever see resembling eternity on this Earth is a government program – but it’s safe to say that “the Michael Flynn trial” also qualifies.
After the Department of Justice announced that they would be dropping their criminal case against Flynn in May, Judge Sullivan appointed an outsider to serve as an amicus curaae to present arguments against the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. The man, John Gleeson, without a hint of irony blasted the DOJ’s motion as a “gross abuse” of power. Two weeks after that a federal appeals court ordered Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s request to drop charges against Flynn. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals approved Flynn’s petition to intervene in the case after a district court judge had tapped an outside counsel to argue against the DOJ’s move. In response, Sullivan appealed to the Circuit Court for an en banc hearing, and oral arguments were scheduled for August 11th, which are going on as I write.
#FLYNN from ongoing oral arguments before full panel DC Court of Appeals @SidneyPowell1 says Flynn is a “defendant without a prosecutor” + Judge Sullivan has “no standing” in the case + taken on the “role of an active litigant” which has “disqualified” him @CBSNews
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) August 11, 2020
According to Townhall’s Matt Vespa:
[The August 11 em banc hearing] could end up “disqualifying” Sullivan from the proceedings. Some on the DC Circuit seem to be worried about the level of bias exhibited by Sullivan and that he should be prepared to answer questions about it.
Vespa points to a thread from Reeves Law founder John Reeves, who read through court documents proving that that some on the DC Circuit are concerned that Sullivan is biased and needs to disqualify himself.
2) The relevant part of the order declares that the parties shall address "the effect, if any, of 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(5)(i) on the District Court judge's Fed. R.. App. P. 35(b) petition for en banc review.https://t.co/RO6kSrEioC
— John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) August 5, 2020
4) Section 455(a) declares, "Any…judge…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."https://t.co/4FuNGQTVpM
— John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) August 5, 2020
6) This indicates that the DC Circuit is concered that by petitioning for en banc review, Judge Sullivan has rendered himself a party to the case, and has thus disqualified himself from further overseeing the district court proceedings.
— John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) August 5, 2020
Flynn update –
DC Court of Appeals requests the parties be prepared to address at oral argument:
1) Whether Judge Sullivan should disqualify himself for perceived impartiality; and
2) If Sullivan should disqualify himself as a party to the proceeding. pic.twitter.com/2cqmA8WhqR
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 5, 2020
Meanwhile, during oral arguments today the DOJ clarified that while they’re not calling Judge Sullivan biased, they believe he has an “appearance of partiality” problem. According to the Albany Law Review, the phrase that one’s “impartiality might be reasonably questioned” is the “linchpin for judicial disqualification in every state, and is based on the American Bar Association’s Code of Judicial Conduct.”
So DOJ just clarified and said they are not claiming Judge Sullivan is actually biased but that there is an “appearance of partiality” problem. That clarification is appreciated.
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) August 11, 2020
Of course, in the Michael Flynn trial nothing seems to make sense. Despite apparent concerns of bias, anyone listening to the oral arguments will notice that these judges seem awfully biased themselves. It’s hard not to speculate that they’re simply trying to drag the case out for as long as possible to effectively force Trump to intervene, so they can then falsely accuse him to abusing his power as President by ending their witch hunt.
In a sane world, Judge Emmet’s behavior in this case would disqualify him from his entire career.
