The process of doing an audit, and the way we do the investigations, is very different from a judicial kind of proceeding in which you have rules of evidence and you have an open process and you have ways to assess that evidence.
What you do in an audit and in these investigations is collect as much information as you possibly can. So you have a lot of conversations with a lot of people. Some of it is right, some of it is not right, some of it is misleading, and some of it is on the mark. The whole audit process is to take that information and focus on what it is you want. So you'll say, I heard all these things, but they're not really relevant to my inquiry. You focus on what you want, and then you go through a process of confirmation.
So if you release all that paper and all that process, what you're doing is putting out a lot of information that may not be true and that doesn't give any protection to the people who might be named or the systems or the organizations that might be named. They would have no recourse to that; it would just be out there. The auditors and investigators would have a problem continuing their work, because people are going to be very careful--they now think of a world in which everything they say to the auditor might just end up out there--when in fact what you want is full disclosure and openness to the auditors. Then I would have a problem as the head of an organization, because it would mean that I would have to explain and stand behind all the papers. And of course, my whole process is set up to only stand behind the final results.