[Note that "could be." That doesn't mean "for sure could be," it means "possibly could be" or "could conceivably be" or "could be under any circumstances." As Powell argues in her brief--citing legal authority--prosecutors aren't the ones who get to decide what could be favorable to the defense--the defense attorneys do. That's why, in prosecutions I've been associated with, the AUSAs simply do a document dump--ALL 302s are simply turned over to the defense, unredacted.]
"affirmatively suppressed evidence that destroyed the credibility of their primary witness [and] impugned their entire case against General Flynn."
[It's a no-brainer that Van Grack--forced to produce material that he had previously refused to produce--would claim that the material somehow wasn't Brady material. To admit that it was Brady material would almost automatically get him held in contempt. Note that Chamberlain puts that "voluntary" in quotes, because he knows the reality is that the production was compelled by Powell's superb representation of her client, General Flynn.]
[Important point--DOJ would have to appoint new prosecutors, NOT Jesse Liu, the USA in DC. That's because Jesse Liu was supervising the prosecutors and, as Powell argues, the whole DC USAO is complicit in the Brady violations as a result.]
[I imagine not. They probably saw this coming, but had no way to prevent it.]
Lawyers for Mr. Flynn, the former national security adviser, said they believed prosecutors had material that could exonerate him. The government dismissed those claims.
[I have to believe that Powell will use this obvious prosecutorial leak to the NYT when she argues before Judge Sullivan.]
[Apparently the prosecutors hope Sullivan reads and takes his cues from the NYT. Maybe he does, but at some point in the appellate process I think Powell and Flynn will find judges who think for themselves.]
[In fact, Powell has publicly stated that she's seeking a full exoneration. Wouldn't a real reporter have noted that fact?]