But the fact that it was an internal hire and not Cooks is a significant part of this story that hopefully will be explained. To think otherwise is means you weren't paying attention, which you obviously weren't.
You are right that I don't know every single detail of the hiring process (as if any poster on this message board ever does), but I have been following the story and Cooks was (by all accounts) the most likely internal hire, thus my post. You obviously weren't aware of that, thus your post.
This message has been edited 2 time(s).