zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
I would translate "not consistently candid with the board" as "he lied to the board about something important enough to fire him on the spot". This seems like the kind of statement lawyers would advise you to not make publicly unless you have proof, and it seems unusual compared to most statements of that kind that are intentionally devoid of any information or blame.

>>fabian+Z8
Right and they don’t give a fuck that he lied (well to a limited extent), he did something really bad.

They have proof he for sure lied, but not that he molested his sister growing up.

If it was a different situation and he lied, but they had no proof, you’re correct, then no statement.

Explains a lot.