Judge in Flynn Case Hires Lawyer as Appeals Court Reviews His Refusal To Dismiss
Can you remember a time when a judge had to hire a lawyer to help him respond to a request from a court?
Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that the federal judge tasked with the Michael Flynn case has sought the services of a well-connected and respected attorney over his response to a request from an appeals court.
The Hill also reported that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked Beth Wilkinson to represent him after the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit told Sullivan to answer Flynn’s request for a complete dismissal of the charges against him.
The Department of Justice recommended that the case against Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor, be dropped after evidence suggested the FBI coerced him into lying and admitting guilt.
But Sullivan did not agree with the motion to dismiss, instead taking the unusual route of appointing a former federal judge to argue against Flynn’s request.
Flynn was charged with lying about his contacts with Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak following the 2016 election, according to The Hill.
After Flynn retracted his guilty plea, the DOJ recommended that Sullivan dismiss the case.
Instead of making a judicial decision, Sullivan hired Wilkinson, who represented Brett Kavanaugh during his ugly Senate confirmation hearings.
Wilkinson was also involved in another high-profile case when she represented a lawyer of Hillary Clinton during the investigation into the former secretary of state’s infamous private email server.
Why would a judge involved in a high-profile case hire a high-profile attorney if he wasn’t worried about making a judicial decision?
If he has to solicit legal advice, is he concerned about the potential legal implications of his response?
Does Sullivan have some concerns about the justification of whatever answer he gives the court?
Supporters of the president have argued that Flynn was set up all along by agents within the FBI.
In 2018, however, Flynn told Sullivan that he was telling the truth when he said the FBI did not coerce him into lying.
Flynn now says that was not a true statement.
Sullivan must juggle what Flynn told him under oath and the evidence the DOJ has now presented that confirms the allegations that the FBI conspired to make Flynn lie to authorities.
The judge has until June 1 to respond to the order from the appeals court to drop the case against Flynn or keep the ball rolling down a bizarre hill.
Buckle up for a bumpy ride because it may be a while before we figure out exactly how all of this happened, and more importantly, why it happened.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.