Judge Sullivan ordered to explain his reasoning...

Appeals courts asks bluntly: What the F^ck are you doing here?

Now most everyone felt that Flynn's appeal to make Sullivan allow the dismissal of the case (which every single party of the case is asking for) was a long shot, if not a Hail Mary. But this ruling by the judge ordering Sullivan to explain his actions (within the confines of U.S. v Fokker - which is a precedent that seems to work in Flynn's favor here) came as a surprise.

A win for Flynn?

Now as the legal experts work their way through this, common sense tells us that the Appeals court neither provided Flynn with an outright victory, or provided Sullivan with any comfort here. Common sense also tells us that the Appeals Court in this case is taking a shot across the bow by giving Sullivan an opportunity to explain himself "prior" to his ruling, rather than after his ruling. This avoids the appeals court from being forced to make a call one way or the other.

Filing the appeal prior to any actual Sullivan decision on the dismissal (if there really is a choice involved) provided the Appeals Court with a chance to send this message to Sullivan in a manner that could prevent them from having to overturn his decision if they didn't like it. It's obvious that they do not see the logic of what he is doing here, and if you take them at their word then they just want an explanation.

On the flip side, it could be as a move to embarrass Sullivan and make him provide a good "legal explanation" that would involve some sort of precedent according to U.S. v Fokker... which most every legal expert suggests doesn't exist. While Sullivan may have wanted to just deny the motion to prove a point (even if it meant being overturned on appeal), the manner in which this is being done may cut him off at the knees.

The Appeals Court seems to be telling him ahead of time that a decision not consistent with U.S. v Fokker would be overturned. While I am not privy to a vast understanding judicial standards, I find it hard to imagine that a Judge could make an order that he absolutely knows is being done in bad faith, without justification, and with certainty that it would be overturned.