Seems to me that Donforth contridicts himself in this article. The first two paragraphs sounded as though he might have a different opinion than we were led to believe. But from the third paragraph on the article keeps flip flopping. How can he sya new evidence wouldn't change anything if he hasn't seen any new evidence? Maybe he's right that the FBI didn't do any firing, but what about some other organization, e.g., Seals or Delta Force?
What do you think?