From the letter released, it appears he ought to have been fired quite a while ago.
That has nothing to do with the exposure of evidence that was/continues to be withheld.
And remember, the exposure can be the basis for any necessary/desired appeal.
Which still has nothing to do with the stated reasons for his termination which IMHO based on reading the letter the state's attorney should have done a long time ago.
Please go rake some other muck.