This isn’t just about a name with no record. The deeper issue is how Sean Scott’s unexplained presence in the courtroom — absent from FOIA logs, public records, or professional databases — directly undermines the entire prosecution’s timeline and credibility.
Read more in The Next Brady List.
The DOJ’s silence around Sean Scott creates a suspicious chain of concealment:
- Introduced as IRS-CI in 2011 — before the case officially opened.
- Identified in person via a business card — yet no official records.
- No Giglio disclosure, no background, no accountability.
When a prosecutor introduces an agent into the courtroom—without disclosure of true identity—it raises serious legal concerns (Brady/Giglio violations). But it also poses a journalistic red flag: Why doesn’t the DOJ clarify who this person is? That alone is worth public scrutiny.
The Fifth Circuit could break this silence — forcing the DOJ to respond with facts. Until then, Sean Scott remains emblematic of how secrecy can cloak the truth. His fate is tied directly to the mandate of transparency and accountability we’re demanding.
Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know