5 ms·
It doesn't have to be that he was actually caught in a scandal. It could be that the board was investigating some serious accusation, and he was not cooperativ
by khazhoux 3y ago
It doesn't have to be that he was actually caught in a scandal. It could be that the board was investigating some serious accusation, and he was not cooperative and forthright, which they might have no patience for.
I invented a saying to describe this common occurrence: "Sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime."
- xnx 3y ago> I invented a saying to describe this common occurrence: "Sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime." This concept and phrasing was common at least as early as the Watergate Scandal in 1974.
- khazhoux 3y agoYes, the phrase really taking off!
- shrimpx 3y agoWe have a long history of indicting people for "lying under oath" and never indicting them for the actual issue they were interrogated about, which often is not an indictable offense, but rather something personally embarrassing.
- bertil 3y agoIt could have been a military contract with a gag order: Sam wasn’t forthright because he couldn’t.
- frabcus 3y agoAgreeing to that would be a very good reason for a board to sack him.
- bertil 3y agoAnd he probably wouldn’t approve unless there was a specific use case that he thought mandated an exception. Recent international news provide some inspiration.
- nemomarx 3y agoDo gag orders usually stop you from talking to your board about it, or people you work with?
- bertil 3y agoI couldn’t tell you. Slow blink.
- lucubratory 3y agoGag orders are absolute, you're not allowed to tell anyone about what you're gagged on except for the specific people the government agrees to.