Margot Cleveland has an informative, relatively brief, analysis of the ruling. Helpfully, she goes over what Flynn's options are going forward. She addresses a similar point to the one commenter D raised at the linked post. As I pointed out, for Flynn to go public might probably simply enrage the judge for sentencing purposes. Similarly, Cleveland writes:
Now Flynn must decide whether to proceed with sentencing or to attempt to withdraw his guilty plea or challenge the effectiveness of his first trial counsel, or some combination of these. In weighing his options, Flynn will likely recall his last sentencing hearing before Judge Sullivan and the federal judge’s reaction to hints that Flynn was not accepting responsibility for the offense—something that affects sentencing.
Also, given Judge Sullivan’s prior comments, if Flynn proceeds to sentencing now, he is likely to see some jail time. Of course, President Trump might then pardon Flynn, but with the 2020 election forthcoming, political calculations might squelch that hope.
Read it all. Overall she's pretty much on the same page as I am, but she lays emphasis on the fact that Sullivan appears to have approached the motion with a closed mind. My own expressed incomprehension at some of his statements point in the same direction. Cleveland quotes Sidney Powell regarding what I described as Sullivan's "over the top" claim of “Ethical Concerns with Mr. Flynn’s Brief”:
Powell said in a statement that “the plagiarism accusation makes no sense,” adding that she “relied on briefing in one of my own cases and both cited and linked the brief written primarily by my brilliant friend Lucas Walker.” “That’s how Judge Sullivan knew the source for the material,” Powell explained.
Here's the link:
UPDATE 1: Ouch!
This is embarrassing.— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) December 17, 2019
Judge Sullivan's accusation that a "plagiarized brief violated" the rule against "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation" is... fraudulent.
The case he cites has to do with a lawyer demanding payment for a brief he didn't write. [Fraud]
UPDATE 2: Imagine what Jonathan Turley might have written about Sullivan if he'd been aware of the full facts regarding the "plagiarism" claim as outline above by Techno Fog. Here's the link to Turley: Flynn Judge Accuses Defense Counsel In Curious Plagiarism Claim. Maybe, just maybe, Flynn has an argument for having the case reassigned?
... Many of us have criticized the prosecution of Flynn who pleaded guilty to a single false statement in interviews with the FBI. In addition, Flynn may not want to be sentenced by Sullivan whose last major hearing include false allegations against Flynn and dramatic condemnations. One can certainly understand Sullivan’s refusal to let Flynn get out of a plea that he willingly entered. However, the opinion contained an attack on his counsel that seemed gratuitous and unsupported.
Sidney Powell is a former prosecutor with extensive criminal justice experience. She was the subject of a curious part of the long opinion.
Early on, Judge Sullivan dedicates a separate section to suggest that counsel has committed an unethical act:
Wait. Powell cited and had a hyperlink to the source of that material, but it warrants a section accusing her of plagiarism and ethical violations?
... I just do not understand why an insufficient citation warranted such a public lashing and suggestion of unethical conduct.
Powell says that “the plagiarism accusation makes no sense.” She maintains that she used her own prior briefings and a brief written by a friend who was in fact cited.
The criticism in the opinion will likely deepen the unease of Flynn in having the sentencing under Judge Sullivan. However, the court said that it will proceed with precisely such a hearing on January 28, 2020.