I do not disagree with you that the statement also named that as a reason for firing her.
All I’m saying that if the DDoS played any part in their decision to fire her, then that part of the justification for their decision represents immoral cowardice to me.
The bit you quoted makes no reference to the DDoS. You decided that the quoted text implied that. You then talk about interpretation, having claimed a specific reference that doesn't exist. You can't have it both ways.
The bit you quoted makes no reference to the DDoS. You decided that the quoted text implied that. You then talk about interpretation, having claimed a specific reference that doesn't exist.
All I’m saying that if the DDoS played any part in their decision to fire her, then that part of the justification for their decision represents immoral cowardice to me.