From NRO's Media Blog, here is a judges opinion on someone CBS uses as an expert:
Claimant’s credibility is the key issue in this case, both because there is frequent conflict between her version of events and that of other witnesses and because her perception of events is the principal component in her belief that she has been discriminated against for her protected activities. Accordingly, much of this part of the decision will address claimant’s credibility.
Getting right to the point, Cate Jenkins is the most disingenuous, evasive, and self- serving witness I have ever observed. She is an intense woman who believes that any means are acceptable if, in her view, the ends are desirable, including lying (even under oath), searching through co-workers' personal effects, and leaking confidential information. She further believes that any person, rule, or law which stands in her way can be ignored. She has acted and continues to act as if she believes she is the only person at EPA who is concerned with the public interest and everyone else is selling out to the industries regulated by EPA. Accordingly, she irrationally assumes that every criticism of her job performance, no matter how obviously valid, is part of a plan to impede her efforts to protect the public and the environment. It does not appear to have entered her mind that proposals which differ from hers may nevertheless be meritorious or even worthy of consideration, nor does it appear to have occurred to her that her "ends justify the means" philosophy may compromise both her credibility and that of the EPA. Dr. Jenkins' sanctimonious, condescending, and distrusting attitude toward her colleagues made it inevitable that serious problems would develop in her employment relationships.* [...]
Complainant's utter lack of credibility could only truly be appreciated through personally observing her six days of testimony. I do not often rely solely on demeanor in determining a witness's credibility, but the complainant's demeanor was so disquieting that it is dispositive here by itself. Complainant often appeared to be in her own world, divorced from reality. She frequently answered questions with long discourses that quickly became unfocused. During her period on the witness stand complainant lied with impunity and did not appear the least embarrassed when she was caught in these lies (e.g., TR 968-82, 1014-17). She bragged about her bizarre behavior which she seemed to have no idea was in any way aberrant or unusual ( e.g. TR 1245-55). In addition, she had alleged lapses of memory on unfavorable points so frequently that it was obvious the problem was one of honesty rather than memory. She has her own moral standards which are not in accord with those of the rest of society. She has no concept of team or organization, refuses to recognize the authority of her supervisors, and has no sense of loyalty to anything other then herself. She also has an enormous ego. When Thoreau wrote supportively about marching to the beat of a different drummer, I do not think this is what he had in mind.
* Complainant appears surprised that her relationship with her then-supervisor, Matthew Straus, began to deteriorate in October 1986 after she wrote a memo which was critical of Straus. See TR 767. Likewise, complainant seems not to have drawn a connection between her bizarre behavior at work, such as searching through colleagues’ offices, brandishing a fake pistol and disclosing the existence of a confidential criminal investigation, and her estrangement from the EPA staff. See TR 790-92.