Context, dude, context: I was looking at the reasons why people might conclude that racism was involved, and pointing out that in the absence of supporting evidence, racism is a logical conclusion. Sure, you could quote the "racism is a logical conclusion" clause in the sentence above, and tell me that I made a clear suggestion of racism. But I think it would be clear to the meanest intelligence that the sentence above - and my original post - were discussing perceptions and the way they are reached.
Consider the notion that they might be even be wise not to release information about investigations before a trial.
I haven't heard anything about plans for a trial. All we've seen so far is a high-profile firing with unsupported accusations. An accusation made publicly is a trial in the court of popular opinion, as in any other trial, if you expect to win you produce evidence. I hope they do try him, personally. If they don't want to they should have just said he was being dismissed for a serious breach of security protocol and left it at that. No trial would have been needed. But if you come out and accuse him of spying for China, and then fail to prosecute, you raise serious questions about your motives.
You might yourself some someday appreciate that consideration.
?? |
