But let's go ahead and address that elephant in the closet that you're ignoring - you don't honestly believe that the Whichard Comm was going to come up with anything meaningful in the way of a report, do you?
It could be in the policy, but I do believe that public law (including one’s basic civil liberties) trumps private contracts. This clearly “impinges” (as lawyers like to say) on someone’s civil rights (the students’) and on the public’s right to know about its government and its functioning.
You are proving my point, Sir. If this type of interference is allowed then the “elephant” that I am supposedly ignoring will indeed come to fruition.
Assuming that interference with an investigation is excusable, but then saying the subsequent invesitgation’s hollow result is inevitable (nothing found due to a less than complete investigation) is peculiar logic.
Even a lawyer should understand the logical problems with that. No offense intended, but even I can figure out the problems with that logic.
And “elephants in the closet”? Your mixture of metaphors is more appropriate to a closeted homosexual who is also a Senator and a member of the party symbolized by, well, elephants. Perhaps you were confusing that matter and this one.
Nobody in North Carolina expects the public entities to do their job and nobody calls them on it?
Given Fred’s past experience with federal and state corruption, I would expect a Fred supporter to be more assertive of governmental and private actions to expose public corruption — not to dismiss those who point to clear wrongs and expecting public entities to do their job correctly.
Dismissing those who pointed to the truth in this matter has been the problem from Day 1.