i mean, my takeaway from reading the summary of the testimony is that her demotion was justified on the grounds of not upholding the interests of the government, which is what she is there to do. she's not elected as attorney-general; she works for the prime minister, at the prime minister's discretion. and, if she doesn't want to do her job, that's grounds for dismissal.

her claim that these discussions were inappropriate is actually completely wrong, in my view.

and, it's not clear why she would insist on not listening to her boss in a trivial case like this.