"Have to disagree with you here."
Definitely your prerogative.
"You've stated that "witholding funds would be a breach of contract" and that he would be fired next day for "cause" because of the breach of contract."
Well...I admit that when I said "next day", that was probably an exaggeration, but yes...fundamentally that statement is correct. He would probably get fired if he breached the contract.
"Breach of contract is a legal thing. FHFA/FandF would have to be sued for this. They'd then have to be found to be in breach or "guilty" if you will, of it for it to be Breach of Contract (or admit to it). Until then, its just an allegation of Breach and an allegation of that is not "cause". "
Not really. You are confusing the remedy of a breach of contract and the necessary means achieve cause in a termination.
Cause can be very subjective. Where legal breach of contract is based on objective reasonability, cause from breach can be based entirely on the Presidents perception of cause. Watt could, of course, contest the firing in court, but good luck to him there.
If Watt were to be accused of murder, Trump would not be required to wait for the end of a potentially 5 year trial series to find cause to fire. And, like that, even perceived breach of contract would likely be enough for Trump to fire Watt.
For cause is used to illustrate that one cant be fired for things like discrimination. Otherwise, it is very subjective and anything that could be reasonably justified as cause would probably work. Just look at Comey.
But if you think Im wrong, I challenge you to prove it. Please provide me the documentation in HERA or legal statute or precedent that objectively defines "for cause".
I might also point out that under your scenario, Trump could never find cause under any circumstance since Watts contract would be over way before any legal proceedings would end.
