I can think of one reason that has nothing to do with any of...

I can think of one reason that has nothing to do with any of this, politics. Slater and Gordon tends to be a left faction aligned law firm (apart from a few clients). Gillard was from a small left faction and had started gaining support from the right of Labor and the unions.

Maybe people at Slater & Gordon just didn't trust that she was playing for the right team. Maybe she didn't follow a company rule and was dismissed for it. Maybe there were technical errors in her legal work. Maybe they were concerned about aspects of her conduct but they were not crimes. Maybe she had a personality clash with someone in the office and it could not be resolved. Maybe in doing what her client, the AWU, asked in creating the association her employer disagreed with what she did and there was a difference in their approach to professional practice. Hell, maybe she was just incompetent and was dismissed for poor performance.

There are so many plausible explanations and I don't pretend to offer any insight. Some of these plausible reason couldn't be acknowledged for political and legal reasons. What I'm saying is they are all equally or more plausible then the idea that she committed a crime and has not been charged despite a decade of intense right wing scrutiny, a police investigation and a Royal Commission that looked at this issue.

Hey, it's even possible that setting up that association was an ethical grey area, but what I can confidently say after all the time that has passed and all the official investigations is that she didn't commit a criminal offence.

If I'm wrong she is obviously a criminal mastermind who has fooled the entirety of law enforcement and we should probably re-elect her because we could really use someone that smart as PM.

Truly, the type of people who push this nonsense are the right's answer to the loony lefties who want Howard prosecuted for war crimes for his decisions around Iraq.

I just wish people would stop trying to find a way to criminalise those they disagree with. That's all this is about.

"I don't like Gillard, she's a criminal and injustice is the only reason she hasn't been charged," despite clear examples of her being extensively and independently cleared of criminal conduct.

"I don't like Howard, he's a war criminal and western power is the only reason he hasn't been taken to The Hague," despite no evidence of anything other than questionable politics and the decision to go to war being a decision of Cabinet.

Seriously, this type of stuff would be laughable if it didn't diminish our democracy and the legacy of people who have served our nation. (PS as an ex member of the ADF I am happy to say politicians "serve" our nation.

Maybe everyone should leave them both alone, disagree with their policy positions if needed and respectfully thank them for their service.