zlacker

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."

>>khazho+(OP)
> 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.

>>khazho+(OP)
We 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.

>>khazho+(OP)
It could have been a military contract with a gag order: Sam wasn’t forthright because he couldn’t.

>>bertil+Rw
Agreeing to that would be a very good reason for a board to sack him.

>>xnx+h7
Yes, the phrase really taking off!

>>bertil+Rw
Do gag orders usually stop you from talking to your board about it, or people you work with?

>>nemoma+Sy
I couldn’t tell you.

Slow

blink.

>>nemoma+Sy
Gag 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.

>>frabcu+Vx
And he probably wouldn’t approve unless there was a specific use case that he thought mandated an exception. Recent international news provide some inspiration.