Judge Sullivan hears legal arguments against Trump’s pardon of Michael Flynn
When Donald Trump granted a preemptive pardon to Michael Flynn, Palmer Report pointed out that it wasn’t a magic wand. There isn’t clear precedent as to whether preemptive pardons (for charges not yet brought) are constitutional, because they’ve never been properly challenged in court. They’ll surely be challenged during the course of Trump’s pardon spree, and we’ve been wondering if Judge Emmet Sullivan would initiate that process himself. After all, he’s been going out of his way to stop Bill Barr from sabotaging the Flynn case.
That prospect got a boost over the weekend when another Federal Judge, Reggie Walton, publicly urged Sullivan to consider ruling that Flynn’s pardon doesn’t apply to charges not yet brought. Sure enough, Sullivan announced today that he’ll hear friend of the court amicus briefs from legal experts who are arguing that Flynn’s pardon isn’t valid for charges that haven’t been brought yet.
There’s no roadmap for where this is headed. But we now have confirmation that Judge Sullivan is at least considering formal arguments against the scope of Flynn’s pardon. This could open the door for the DOJ to hit Flynn with additional criminal charges once Trump is gone.
