The term there, I guess, is “no evidence”, which leads me to ask exactly what is made public. There are some confidentiality concerns. I understand that and I appreciate that. By the same token, because of the nature of investigations such as that, because they have received a fair amount of public attention, I suppose one could argue that there should be some public disclosure as to the results of your investigation and some of the details of the investigation, for two reasons.
I suppose that both parties—both the complainant and the individual who was charged—feel somewhat aggrieved. The complainant would say they believe there was voter fraud or that some allegations, at least, that they have made should be substantiated because of this and that. The individual in this case who was charged with perhaps manipulating the voting results would also feel that their reputation has been sullied because there have been some very serious charges laid upon them.
In this profession, your public reputation is fairly important. If there are members of the public out there who are thinking one way or the other that this election was stolen in a fraudulent manner, that colours or prejudices them against the one candidate or the other. I think it would be helpful, without breaking any real confidences as to who made the complaint, who you spoke with, and things like that, some level of public information was disclosed as to why you ruled in the manner in which you ruled.
Does that make any sense to you?