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.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone familiar with this case & Durham who thinks that the Whichard Comm was going to come up with meaningful reform. We're not talking about a criminal investigation. It's an investigation 'to see how Durham can do better'. Nothing against Whichard himself, who is a respected and admirable man, but the Committee itself is saddled with a large number of agenda-driven activists.
The lesson to be taken away from the AIG/Durham situation is that the city knew, or should have known, that the Committee was never going to complete its mandate. Whichard himself said that he had concerns about this all along. No one told their constituents, though.
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.
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