My dear editor,
I would like to make a wry comparison with the 1973 Watergate cover-ups in light of the continued refusal from SAC to explain/ provide tenants and the general public with appropriate answers to their definition of “criterias”.
As there is credence in opining the past with the current, i refer to this matter now as our’e own “Salagate”.
I shall explain why-so in brief:
Five of seven defendants in the Watergate trial pleaded guilty in Jan of that year (1973). The other 2 were convicted. Top Nixon aides H.R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman, John W. Dean III and attorney general Richard Kleindienst resigned in April of that year amid charges of White House efforts to obstruct justice.
In June of that year, Dean, former Nixon counsel, told senate hearings that Nixon, his staff and campaign aides, and the justice dept had all conspired to with cover-ups. In July of that year Nixon refused to release relevant documentation. Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Nixon when Cox threatened to secure a judicial ruling that Nixon was violating a court order to turn over evidence to judge John Sirica.
In May of 1974 impeachment hearings were opened against Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee. In July of that year, Ehrilchman and 3 White House “plumbers” were found guilty of conspiring to “Violate Civil Rights”.
In August of that year, and with his support well eroding when he released 3 transcripts admitting he originated plans to have the FBI stop it’s probe of Watergate for political as well as national security reasons, Nixon resigned on the 9th day of that month.
In mirroring these two particular cases, one must remember that boards and sub-committees around the globe have CEOs whom chair out-going “in-house” decisions to aid in the communities and their clients best interests. Indeed, this comes with both a responsibility to democratic rights and a responsibility to afford “reason where reason is justly due” when a back-lash hits from all sides.
I have pointedly used the wording “Violate Civil Rights” from the above in order to stress the seriousness which is being handed down to the alcove tenants.
In short: “Absolute Procedural Fairness”???
Anthony C. Robe, Sandy Bay