With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 673, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 2346, 135 L.Ed.2d 843, 850 (1996). The First Amendment’s “guarantee of freedom of speech protects government employees from termination because of their speech on matters of public concern.” Id. at 675, 116 S.Ct. at 2347,135 L.Ed.2d at 852. Speech may be protected as involving a matter of public concern if it attempts to reveal actual or potential unlawful conduct or a breach of the public trust on the part of a government official. Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188,195 (3d Cir.2001). Here, defendants concede for purposes of the motion that plaintiffs speech — his report of the extortion attempt and his testimony at Caruso’s trial that implicated Mayor Milan — is protected as a matter of public concern. See id. at 194-95 (<HOLDING>). That said, while we agree that plaintiff

A: holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern
B: holding that the plaintiffs speech was not a matter of public concern because it did not bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of the defendant and others
C: holding that a public employees expressive conduct in support of a coworker in her personnel dispute was a matter of public concern because it helped expose potential government misconduct
D: holding that employees contact with fbi regarding defendants potential fraud theft and misallocation of public funds was a matter of public concern
A.