> It’s clear from the article that both Ive and Dye were directly involved in the firing. It's really not. The part you quoted doesn't say that Ive was "direct

> It’s clear from the article that both Ive and Dye were directly involved in the firing. It's really not. The part you quoted doesn't say that Ive was "directly involved" in the firing, it says he felt something about the message Chaudhri sent. The article states Dye was directly involved in the firing, and mentions nothing about if Ive was involved or not, so we should presume he wasn't. Otherwise the article would say so.