>How can his testimony against Ulbricht be considered trustworthy at this point? It's my understanding that his testimony wasn't used. But despite that, such r

>How can his testimony against Ulbricht be considered trustworthy at this point? It's my understanding that his testimony wasn't used. But despite that, such rottenness at the heart of the investigation (two agents up to their necks in corruption) is seriously troubling, because it leaves any reasonable person wondering what else was going on that we don't know about. It's also deeply troubling that the unproven (though admittedly plausible) murder-for-hire allegations could be used to taint Ulbricht's defense, undermine support for him, and as a reason to increase his sentence, while the corruption within the investigating team was kept hidden from the public, and even the jury, throughout the trial. It appears to be a blatant double standard to me.