Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
There are several points that you keep ignoring..
1. The FBI used those leaks to corroborate his "research"
2. If they fired him before the first application they knowing submitted the application without informing the court that source #1 (the MAIN source) leaked to the media the corroborating evidence..
3. Even if they fired him after the 1st application they state they fired him in October and they didn't notify the court until the renewal application 3 months later which is against policy.. They are suppose to notify the court immediately..
Their main source became untrustworthy the moment they learned he was the source of these leaks.. What HAS to be determined is when they learned of this. Which is what Nunes and co are trying to do..
|
So he leaked to the media and was fired.
What's your point?
He's untrustworthy as a source because of a leak. False.
You really try hard to invalidate the truth. This is part of your biased psychological defect.
If your "logic" was true jailhouse informants would be invalid, which is not reality.