> Yes, and its unclear what this behavior was.

The email clearly states: "certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager"

> No, which is my point.

No, that is the opposite of your point. You said that people critical of Google have been given a rampdown, so it is unusual for her to not be given a rampdown. My point was that there may be other reasons for her not being given a rampdown - that being exactly what was in the email shared about her not behaving as a manager. If you think that she was fired solely for being critical and not given a rampdown, then there should be other examples of people being fired without a rampdown for merely being critical.

Yes, and having read the email, I will reiterate my assertion that it is "certainly not obvious" what behavior is being characterized as "inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager". Repeating the vague justification message is not a response to criticism of the vague justification message. The email she was fired for (it's quoted in this thread) does not contain any content that I find to be fireable.

> No, that is the opposite of your point.

No, it's exactly my point. The vague justification is not borne out by any evidence.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the email from google management. Presumably it wasn't to lay out a case so that the email could be leaked and twitter could understand their rationale. It was just telling her the reason they are not letting her take her last 2 weeks. She still gets paid, she just can't come into the office. I don't understand why you think that email should be convincing evidence to you, an outsider who has absolutely zero to do with the employment contract between Timnit and Google. Surely, Timnit and relevant parties at Google have more context than you or I do.

> The vague justification is not borne out by any evidence.

...that's been leaked onto twitter.