Warrants . The concern grows out of the fact that all of the failures and the and The Information that shouldved been given and wasnt given. And the question being what was the intent . What what washa their intention . Their motivation there. And what we determined was we couldnt definitively say what the motivation was. Are these pretty smart people . Fairly welleducated . At least welleducated. I dont know if theyre smart. I dont know if were very smart to beow honest with you. I was b going to say they have law degrees, right . At least somehe of them do. So you think the woods review for people at this level of the organization. To be clear, the stuff that didnt happen on the woods review was basic stuff. Yeah. You didnt need to be a deeplyexperienced fbi agent to be able to do it the right way. Well, thats my point. So wouldnt you think that would almost be muscle p memory for people who are going through this process to know they had an obligation to go through that . They clear
that the person accused when a whistle-blower makes an accusation can have the right that mostcu americans think the should have to confront those testifying against them? how how is thatng accomplish? so i ll speak to what we do. we get anonymous allegations frequently. we get people coming forward who are reporting misconduct who want to be anonymous. want to stay anonymous. so we get them both ways. we get people walking in saying keep me anonymous. and anonymous complaints.g in we move forward on both if we think they aree sufficient to move forwardre on. and predicated and have support. but we then have to prove the allegations and get corroboration for its because you re right. the individual, if there is a finding ofhe misconduct, has a right to ultimately challenge the evidence found. but it doesn t necessarily mean that they get all the way back to where the nugget started.