Wait so the defense's case centers around the idea that Carreyrou had too much influence over regulators by providing extensive evidence, witness testimony, and analysis by objective third party specialists? Is this for real? By "eager to break a story" do they mean a kind of eagerness that results in a painstaking effort to build a thorough case that has been scrutinized by the public and media alike? This, like Theranos' tech, can't possibly be viable.