What it means is they have locked down a key cooperator who can, at a minimum, disprove what has been a publicly articulated key element of her defense, that being the stop-loss order.

What it means is they have locked down a key cooperator who can, at a minimum, disprove what has been a publicly articulated key element of her defense, that being the stop-loss order,

While it's hard to compare-and-contrast (the two trials), there's no question that prosecutors tried a more streamlined case this time.

This is not somebody who made some inadvertent false statement, ... This is a case where a jury convicted a CEO for lying to two different government agencies. That's a big deal.

In the last two years, the government has painstakingly climbed ladders, gotten different people along the way to plead guilty in order to go after someone at the higher rung. We're now at the top of the ladder.

there's never any assurance that a juror who meets a certain profile will return a verdict a certain way.