The irony of the Flynn ruling...

So what exactly was Judge Sullivan attempting to suggest or accomplish? Above and beyond Judge Sullivan's obvious dislike of General Flynn, it would appear that Sullivan wanted to question the motives and decision making of the DOJ and prosecutors who decided to drop the case.

In reality there isn't anything "that" unusual with new information coming forward and people taking back their pleas (as much as Sullivan tried to pretend that action to be some sort of contempt). What Sullivan was realistically questioning was the highly politicized manner in which this case was handled. The fact that Sullivan appeared completely disinterested in the portions where Flynn was charged, and focused solely on where the charges were dropped is not just curious, but deeply relevant.

Here is what the Appeals Court stated:

In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power. The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, interfering with the Article II charging authority…. Thus, the district court’s appointment of the amicus and demonstrated intent to scrutinize the reasoning and motives of the Department of Justice constitute irreparable harms that cannot be remedied on appeal.

So the court ruled that the ENTIRE purpose of Sullivan's request was (in and of itself) an interference into the executive branch's prosecutorial decision making. Not only did Sullivan not have the right to question the motives for why Flynn's charges were dropped, but even the suggestion that the prosecution would be forced to explain themselves constituted irreparable harm. 

While this was the argument being made by the prosecution all along, the media framed the argument largely from the standpoint of whether or not the prosecution had good cause to drop the charges. It turns out that the DOJ was right all along, and that Sullivan was not even entitled to hear any sort of argument from the prosecution in the first place.

So it never did matter how Sullivan would have ruled. His point was likely to create a political fallout for the prosecution, by forcing the prosecution to reveal their reasoning to the court (and public). That is what it was all about, and that is exactly what the appeals court stated was not proper.

Certainly we now know why this sort of ploy has never been tried prior, and will not likely be tried again.