A Board independently investigating its CEO with outside counsel absolutely communicates they think he may have fucked up. You don't do that in the normal course of affairs.
They are not 'investigating the CEO' - they are investigating the situation.
In the press release they are investigating the fat that Jensen 'was the target of an operation'.
I think the misrepresentative nature of your comment proves my point.
What experience or reporting are you basing this on?
> They are not 'investigating the CEO' - they are investigating the situation
This is how all independent investigations by a Board are phrased. Because half the time, you don't fire the CEO. Would you say walking into a meeting where you have a 50% chance of being fired is a nothing burger?
> the misrepresentative nature of your comment proves my point
I think I'm pretty clearly representing what a lot of folks on this thread are misunderstanding, willfully or ignorantly, about the nature of this sort of a Board action.