I wholeheartedly agree that the board's communication and how they handled the firing was woefully naive and extremely poorly done.
That said, you may have missed it but Toner alleged some very specific instances of lying and withholding information from the board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582. That's very different from "vague and non-specific character attacks".
And, importantly, 4 total board members agreed that was the right action to take.
2. Toner presents them alongside insinuations and plenty of vague and nonspecific things.
Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2).
As for four board members, that’s a description of what the board did, not what Sam did. The board’s actions do not justify the board’s actions, however much Toner might wish that were the case. Just another insinuation in place of a reason.
Based on the timing it doesn't seem like your "Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2)" conclusion makes sense. It wasn't like she gave out a lot of specifics, and when people thought that wasn't enough evidence that she then resorted to "vague and non-specific" claims. The timing was the opposite.
My guess (having seen other examples of this) is the board depended too much on the legal advice they got. That is, I'm sure their lawyers recommended giving as few details as possible, because every detail you give is a potential opening for a lawsuit. This is generally standard legal advice when firing someone. The problem with that advice is that while it may make sense from a purely legal perspective, it is absolutely horrible practical advice when it comes to communicating their rationale for a decision of this magnitude.
My apologies, in listing elements with numbers I meant to make them easy to reference, rather than to suggest a temporal ordering of their use. I did write that (2) has been used alongside (1). And it’s not like the vague character attacks and insinuations (2) have stopped being a device in the story Toner tells.
If Toner’s approach has merely been to stay pragmatic about avoiding legal risks, then it’s difficult to say what prompted her recent podcast, which she had no legal duty to produce.
For what it’s worth, smearing her professional colleague with the stereotype of a sneaky, untrustworthy gay man really shouldn’t have any place in Toner’s repertoire. Gay men can of course be sneaky and untrustworthy, but if Toner really feels the need to explain her behavior to the public, then Toner could potentially improve her credibility by trying her hardest to give a very clear and detailed picture of what happened and to stop employing vague and non-specific devices, so that the public can consider her claims with lucidity rather than through a fog of insinuation.
There's a difference between the Board of Directors accusing their CEO of wrongdoing, and a ex-Director doing the same thing on a personal capacity.
Obviously the Board has access to legal advice (and probably would risk trouble if they ignored it since they have additional fiduciary duties as Board members), but Toner probably doesn't retain a lawyer for this kind of stuff and when one doesn't have an official position they generally have fewer legal liabilities to worry about.
That said, you may have missed it but Toner alleged some very specific instances of lying and withholding information from the board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582. That's very different from "vague and non-specific character attacks".
And, importantly, 4 total board members agreed that was the right action to take.