Where does the buck stop...

So where does the buck stop when there is a "scandal" during an administrations term? The whole Chris Christie thing raises some interesting questions. Assuming that he really had no idea that his underlings were doing what is is level of responsibility. It is easy to say that he hired them, he is responsible for their actions....and I agree with this 100%, but responsible to what extent?

A president is good example...how are they supposed to know about every little detail that is going on every minute of every day? It is easy to say that the buck stops at the top but how much "punishment" should the CEO face when an underling does something they ought not do in an official capacity.

I think for the most part that they should be given the benefit of the doubt unless a pattern develops. I don't know of any such pattern in the Christie case (admittedly I don't know much about him). I do know that both sides are prone to say that the other side should be tarred and feathered when something like this happens but them make excuses when it is their golden boy who is in the hot seat.

Just curious what ya'll think is proper in these sorts of cases.