The affiliate has now pulled Goudie's report and in an updated video and article , Goudie denied he had said Vasquez Hernandez was cooperating, but admitted he said Vasquez-Herandez had "turned against" Chapo. What's the difference?

The attorney for Alfredo Vasquez Hernandez announced last week that Hernandez was going to enter a guilty plea. We reported that by pleading guilty Hernandez was turning against his co-defendant El Chapo Guzman-currently in custody in Mexico.

....The I-Team never reported that Alfredo Hernandez was cooperating against El Chapo or that he was going to testify against El Chapo.

What other meaning does "turn against" have? Since when does pleading guilty equate with turning against codefendants? Goudie then changes the subject and points out that no actual threats have been received. As if that absolves his misreporting.

I've been reading the Mexican, Colombian and Latin American news articles about the intended plea since the announcement, and haven't seen one that omitted the fact that Vasquez-Herandez was not cooperating. Every report I've seen clearly stated that this was not a cooperation plea and his decision to plead had nothing to do with the recent Chapo arrest. Goudie is the only one who reported Vasquez-Hernandez had turned against Chapo.

As to Vasquez-Herandez, who will now go to trial in May unless the revelation of Goudie's misreporting convinces his former associates he's not a threat, the Government claims in various pleadings: he is a big fish with connections to Chapo's Colombian suppliers, that he was in charge of logistics for transporting many tons of cocaine from Colombia to Mexico, that he provided the train cars that hauled the cocaine from Mexico to the U.S., and from Los Angeles to Chicago and other cities, and that he moved money for Chapo back to Mexico, and that he had been working for Chapo since at least 2001. The Indictment only charges him in two conspiracy counts -- there are no counts charging him with substantive crimes on specific dates.

The expected testimony against Vasquez-Hernandez is mostly from cooperators, including the Flores twins, a Flores underling named Cesar Perez for whom the Government sought a whopping 66% sentence reduction, and two individuals referred to by the Government as CW-A and CW-B, who will provide "Rule 404(b)" evidence about prior bad acts dating to 2001 and 2002, three years before the beginning of the charged conspiracy. The Flores twins recorded a meeting with Vasquez-Herandez at which upcoming deals were discussed but apparently there is no physical evidence such as photos or drug seizures to tie Vasquez-Hernandez to any specific drug transport.

According to Vasquez-Herandez's lawyer, CW-A and CW-B are brothers who are cooperating for reduced sentences, having been indicted in both the District of Columbia and Southern District of New York. Both said they lost touch with him after 2002.

The U.S. Treasury added Vasquez-Hernandez to the designated kingpin list in 2011. While he was arrested in Mexico in 2011 and extradited to Chicago, his lawyers say he had lived in U.S. for 20 years, owned an auto body shop and had never even gotten a parking ticket.