My understanding is that Crawford's critique of Renz is one of degree, not direction., i.e. both agree something seriously fishy is going on but disagree on the magnitude of the differing numbers. Crawford is concerned that if Renz presents his exaggerated numbers in court they could fairly readily be discredited and the cover up would be strengthened. He feels the likely guilty party is the DMED contractor Unissant, and it would be great if anons could dig deeper into them.