But the law isn't as clear as many think.
The recent USSC case disallowed intervenors in a criminal TRIAL, where the contest is between prosecution and defense in front of a judge. What Ginsburg and the rest said was that no evidence, except what the prosecutors put on, was allowed to affect the verdict.
In THIS case, the prosecutors are finished, the trial is over, guilt is established by plea agreement, and the judge is about to pass sentence. In other criminal cases, intervenors (victim impact statements) are permitted to try to sway the judge, which is what Sullivan is trying to achieve here.
What he's done wrong is failing to rule on the motion before the court FIRST. He can't take what amount to victim impact statements from butthurt Deep State conspirators without FIRST ruling on the prosecution's motion to dismiss.
By allowing these swamp dwellers to come into his court and plead about Flynn's SENTENCE (which he would be allowed to do), he has to REJECT the motion to dismiss, in order to keep the case alive.
For the many good reasons already outlined, he really should GRANT the motion to dismiss, for which there is ample precedent - but it's not the same set of facts as in the recent USSC case, where even RBG could not swallow the leftist line.
The Supreme Court handled a civil case ruling 9-0 earlier this month.
This is a federal criminal case governed by federal rules of procedure. Wish I knew what Judge Sullivan is doing but Sidney Powell filed a scathing opposition to this opening up for a third party submission circus.
It goes against federal rules and Judge Sullivan’s own rulings about such third party submissions in the SAME case back in 2017.
There’s going to more opposition filed and at least one ethics complaint.
Why does Judge Sullivan invite that? Wish I knew. Dinner with Eric Holder can’t be worth it.
Sirica was a hapless, low mentality stooge whose every move was dictated by others.