I'm sorry you find a few small paragraphs of words so overwhelming.

You didn't offer a third, more logical option, as your third option was offered in ignorance, and was ultimately erroneous.

And none of this explains why you introduced termination into the equation when termination was never necessarily implied. One with potential biases or conflicts of interests needn't be terminated from their position to preserve the integrity of an investigation--they can be reassigned, or given alternative responsibilities that do not allow them sufficient influence/control with which to undermine or call into question the integrity of the investigation, as is being suggested by this tweet.

Then again you still can't even seem to concede the point about the obvious problem with conflicts of interest in an investigation that is necessarily tied to the corruption that emerged from conflict of interests in a related investigation.

And spare me your infantile butthurt if you insist on proceeding with this exercise in futility.