Creampuff
No you can review all you like. The problem is that you are not interested in facts.
As for the circumstances - they are not different. You are quite happy to provide advice to your "clients" - ie the persons who are employing you or your firm - hence your "employer". There is no difference - except that you seem to believe that is acceptable for you but no one else. Your conflicts are just as elephant sized because you are being paid (hence employed) to provide the advice to the client. But of course your professional integrity is such that you would clearly never be biased or provide convenient advice - but obviously everyone else is incapable of that. That is the problem Creampuff.
There is no discrepancy in my latest post - I actually checked with people who do know what happened (and read the reports) rather than relying on unsubstantiated allegations by a disgruntled Senator who was only interested in pursing a political agenda rather than getting to the truth.
Finally, do you think that Mr Sherman was so stupid and incapable of working out the real facts from all the files and papers (including all the withess statements) tat we was provided - nothing was hidden. He didn't need any external advices etc to bolster his views - he was more than capable of coming to an independent opinion himself given his status and experiece. The fact that he did seems to be completely discounted by you and others who are bent on seeing some sort of sinister cover up and are happy to impugn the integrity of others along the way without any facts or evidence - based on a political statement made by Senator O'Brien which was made in without any proper investigation of the facts. I hope that is not how you deal with all your cases...........
Perhaps you can call Mr Sherman himself and see if he was involved in a cover up. He is still around.
There is clearly nothing further to say on this from my perspective so I won't be rsponding to any more of your posts on this because you are clearly not interested in facts.