Looking back at your previous appearance on May 14--and I'll read from your testimony--you stated:
The process, for example, is that if you call for an internal audit--and I worked in audit many years ago, but I believe the principles still apply--you do the audit, and as soon as you determine that any criminality is involved or that there are code of conduct violations, you suspend the audit and proceed with the criminal investigation.
Why did this not happen in this particular case? Mr. Aiken said he'd never seen so many red flags go up. You clearly outlined what the principles are--you just restated it--that you suspend and you begin a criminal investigation. That did not occur in this case. Are there any particular reasons why?