Defendants request—and prosecutors must supply—this sort of evidence in all cases. An IG report has been prepared that *may* produce evidence previously unknown to and undiscovered by Flynn—so the judge ordered the evidence produced. Withdrawing a guilty plea is *extremely* hard.
2/ In other words, no: nothing here raises questions about Flynn's guilty plea. The judge is noting that a prosecutor's obligation to provide Brady material extends beyond the date of plea if there is new Brady material known to the prosecution.
Flynn isn't withdrawing his plea.
Flynn isn't withdrawing his plea.
3/ In theory, post-plea Brady material *could* lead a defendant to try to withdraw a plea, but a) the "new" Brady material here isn't *factually* exculpatory and only tangentially relevant, b) only in an *infinitesimal* percentage of cases does a defendant try to withdraw a plea.
4/ That conservatives like Napolitano are jumping on this news as an indication that Flynn could, and perhaps should, withdraw his plea is just further evidence of how—in the view of most criminal attorneys—the GOP has gone over the cliff and bigly in its crusade to defend Trump.
5/ For a broader and longer view of this rather run-of-the-mill legal issue, see this excellent thread on the subject (which notes some specific information about this particular judge and this particular criminal case that is indispensable):
