Actually, I thought the opposite until a friend pointed out the former, over dinner.
When i saw the news, I saw that she basically was within her rights to fire Walt for any reason.
He, pointed out, that they found she abused her power.
It seems the media reported everything, and in what I saw, underreported the abuse of of power.
What I think it comes down to is that, yes she fired him for not firing the brother-in-law. I don't even know the reason she wanted the br-in-law fired.
My thought is if the br-in-law was some shit cop, maybe it was just but I don't know all the details.
Is Walt's dealings with subordinates supposed to be out of her purview?
Did she want the br-in-law fired for weird some personal shit?
If it was some personal shit then she's pretty fucked up and if the report basically says she fired people for whateverthefuck reason, I think one would be either a fool or hive-minded party follower to think it's okay cuz "well she didn't brake the law".
That's like the guy who commits pedophilia with all evidence pointing to him, but he gets off on a technicality so it's ok to let him watch your kids.
I will check on this further.
Bookmarks