I havaen't been following this, but it seems to me that a Clinton-appointed judge would have a conflict of interest.
That having been said, the judge should not have earlier released him from the third count. It could be significant. The judge said the government had no basis to tie Rosen to the final amended report. If they didn't use Rosen's false info, whose info did the judge think they used? Why that may be sigificant is that, prior to the final amended filing on July 30, 2001, Peter Paul had served several defendants, providing copies of checks for the expenses. There was no way that they could claim they didn't know.