There is a bit more to it than that. There are some stat decs by senior people that have come to light. A statement by Peter Gordon (Slater and Gordon) that she was sacked after the fraud was detected. To name a few.
It would also be naive to think that receipts cannot be easily manufactured.
Which I actually pointed out when I posted the ABC article.
Nobody is disputing that she left* S&G after Wilson's dealings were detected and investigated**; what I'm saying is that you (and Pickering, and Milne, and Smith) haven't provided evidence that she knew about the fraud. Poor judgement, not following proper procedure or perhaps even the company wanting to avoid possible bad publicity could fit in the list of reasons I gave for why a journalist might lose their job, and apply just as much here, but they're hardly a smoking gun that's going to dethrone the PM.
It's entirely possible that the receipts were fake, but by merely having definitely existed (even if they don't any more) they're more proof than
anything you've put forward. Considering the forum we're on, surely you've seen people pointing out than when somebody makes a claim the onus is on them to prove it, not others to disprove it. Pickering hasn't provided any proof (remember, he's claiming she's guilty of a crime). Milne and Smith never provided any proof. Back in
2007 the accusers had no proof. I don't expect you to have proof yourself, but you have studiously avoided having to acknowledge its total non-existence even when I've directly asked you. (And to make it clear, the claims/facts that Gillard had a relationship with Wilson and Wilson committed fraud
aren't proof in and of themselves.)
Incidentally, while downtown yesterday I met up with a source in the coffeeshop. She told me that apparently back in the 1970s Tony Abbott was fed soup made from a (censored), and that there was a video of him eating it, but she didn't know where the video was. She claimed that he knew what the soup was too. Why hasn't he denied this claim? One wonders why.
You also seem to have missed the point that a news organisation reporting that a claim has been made doesn't automatically add credence to the claim. And none (that I have seen) contain any new information that would. One had new words from Pickering, but still nothing that actually furthers his case.
Finally, I never claimed that you were Andrew Bolt, nor that he was your source, nor was this the implication. My surprise was that your ideas and comments and behavior are so similar to ones being published on the website of an actual newspaper. (I'm sure it won't come as a huge surprise to you that I rarely if ever read the Herald Sun.) I assure you that this has not altered my opinion of you but only further decreased my opinion of Andrew Bolt.
I look forward to your selective quoting and misconstrual of my sentences during your inevitable reply.
*I notice yesterday's Australian article doesn't say she was sacked, and will go with their use of "left". Gillard claims she resigned of course.
**To save time, though it's also only alleged, I'm just going to refer to it as fraud.
