Looks to me like Sullivan has not read any of the documents the prosecution has hidden for nearly 3 years. He has continually ignored the blatant violation of Brady by the prosecution.
If he thinks his desire to have more power over the prosecution trumps his duty to uphold his rulings, re. Brady, he is in for very rude awakening.
He either has no regard for the rights of the defendant, in which case he should be removed from the bench
OR
he is negligent in his duty as a judge to the point he is depriving the accused of his civil rights, in which case he should be removed from the bench
OR
he is simply corrupt or incompetent, in which case he should be removed from the bench.
On May 7 2020 AJ Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the 9-0 decision in UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH reversing the 9th circus stated
In that opinion she cites her prior opinion in Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). This Court has recognized that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.”
And the controlling case in the DC Circuit is Fokker In that case the DC COA held: "[T]he `leave of court' authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of charging authority." United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
The case further held:
The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive's charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.