I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm remarking that there may be a very simple and good reason for Kaplan to appear while recognizing there could be very in

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm remarking that there may be a very simple and good reason for Kaplan to appear while recognizing there could be very interesting outcomes if-as you put it-he or anyone else were to lose their job for it. This isn't a remarkably difficult exercise of mental plurality. Nor is it one of partisan critique. If someone attends a government function as a private citizen and is fired for it, I think that would make for an interesting set of legal questions with regards to employment law. If someone were fired for doing the same even in an official capacity, that-to me-would be even more interesting. Since you brought up strict standards for certain levels of employees, I responded to that. You can't very logically say my response to this is trying to have it both ways if all I've done is respond to your talking points. That's all there is to that, imo. Don't read between the lines here because there's really nothing there to read; I am positing that one really doesn't need to connect many dots for Kaplan's attendance at these hearings, but I can entertain the idea you presented: that being fired for attending a government function would make for interesting legal theater as an impartial and dispassionate onlooker.